The W
Views: 101546300
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.12.14 1114
The W - Current Events & Politics - We need more protesters like this (Page 2)
This thread has 69 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next(2298 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (63 total)
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1375 days
Last activity: 142 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#21 Posted on
Please then, give me the proper feminine form of the word "guys" then, since "guys" refers to a group of men or a group of people of mixed sex (basic grammar rules usually dictate that when referring to a group of masculine and feminine nouns, the masculine word is acceptable). So since I can't use guys to describe a group of women, and the proper word "Girls" (as gals is outdated, and no longer used), what exactly am I supposed to say?
And no, women is not an appropriate word either. Women is NOT the feminine counterpart of the word "guys."
Jeez- talk about touchy. I just can't keep up with the PC rules and regulations. They change far too often.




Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1329 days
Last activity: 1126 days
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by messenoir
    So please, even if you disagree with the message, give some fucking credit to who is giving the message.

If it looks like shit, and smells like shit, it's probably shit. The groups you mentioned have no credibility outside of the liberal political sphere. While there are conservatives who oppose the war for philosophical reasons, they sure as hell aint liing up behind these left-wing wacko train...



Americans are a resolute people who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world and to ourselves. America is a strong nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers. Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity.
- President George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 1/28/2003
Stephanie
Landjager








Since: 2.1.02
From: Madison, WI

Since last post: 581 days
Last activity: 50 days
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.22

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Please then, give me the proper feminine form of the word "guys" then, since "guys" refers to a group of men or a group of people of mixed sex (basic grammar rules usually dictate that when referring to a group of masculine and feminine nouns, the masculine word is acceptable).


From the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary (emphasis added):

Main Entry: guy
Function: noun
Etymology: Guy Fawkes
Date: 1806
1 often capitalized : a grotesque effigy of Guy Fawkes traditionally displayed and burned in England on Guy Fawkes Day
2 chiefly British : a person of grotesque appearance
3 a : MAN, FELLOW b : PERSON -- used in plural to refer to the members of a group regardless of sex {saw her and the rest of the guys}

So, technically, "guys" could mean a group of men or a group of women. In the real world, though, we're more likely to call each other "girls", regardless of age.

Steph



I'm going twenty-four hours a day...I can't seem to stop
- "Turn Up The Radio", Autograph
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 8 hours
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#24 Posted on
I don't want to get dragged into a semantics discussion (he said, as he got dragged into a semantics discussion)...

I'm sorry, maybe I'm just old-fashioned but I can't think of a group of 20- to 50-somethings as "girls." My mom is not a "girl."

I would have preferred "ladies" or "women," I guess. Please tell me you can at least see how others could find a difference between the terms.

The sad thing is that wasn't even my main point. "Girls" on its own probably wouldn't have gotten a response from me, but my REAL issue was with your "I bet none of them even knows where Iraq is" crack which, when added to the use of "girls" not to mention "no clue," totals out to what I see as pretty much a sexist remark ("girls are dumb") even if you don't/won't/can't see it as such. In addition, it gave the (still as yet unrefuted) impression that you didn't bother reading the story or getting into the facts because all you really wanted to do was make a smartass remark. And, golly, that annoys me, so I'll waste my precious time dragging both of us into this inane semantical exercise.



©CRZ™
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#25 Posted on


    Originally posted by Stephanie
    So, technically, "guys" could mean a group of men or a group of women. In the real world, though, we're more likely to call each other "girls", regardless of age.

    Steph



"Guys" could also mean a group of French-Canadian hockey players.



George Washington gave his signature
The Government gave its hand
They said for now and ever more that this was Indian Land

"As long as the moon shall rise"
"As long as the rivers flow"
"As long as the sun will shine"
"As long as the grass shall grow"


CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 8 hours
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#26 Posted on

    Originally posted by Eddie Famous


    "Guys" could also mean a group of French-Canadian hockey players.

Guy! I mean, "Gee!"



©CRZ™
Stephanie
Landjager








Since: 2.1.02
From: Madison, WI

Since last post: 581 days
Last activity: 50 days
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.22

    Originally posted by CRZ
    I'm sorry, maybe I'm just old-fashioned but I can't think of a group of 20- to 50-somethings as "girls." My mom is not a "girl."


You're as old as you feel.

Steph



I'm going twenty-four hours a day...I can't seem to stop
- "Turn Up The Radio", Autograph
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1375 days
Last activity: 142 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#28 Posted on
OK- I seem to have to packpedal a bit here.

The comment "not a signle one of these girls even knows were Iraq is" was not intended to be sexist. My reason for thinking that was NOT because they happened to be female. If anything, it was a slam at protesters in general. I think the protest culture in this country has seen a dramatic shift over the decades. People who marched in women's rights events and civil rights protests back in the day seemed to have a very clear idea what they were protesting about. Today, I find that most people who are out protesting something really have no clue what is going on. Sure, their heart may be in the right place, "no war" is indeed a noble idea, but when there is no real contest in the protest, there is less meaning. Especially considering the fact that these very liberal people were nowhere to be seen when Clinton was rattling his sabre about Iraq. They are not protesting the war, they are protesting Bush, and only because of his political party.

So it was not a slam on women. It was a slam on modern-day protesters. This group happened to be all female.

I will say that I would never dare call a group of women my Mom's age "girls." I would call them ladies. But this was a dominantly younger group.

And Stephanie, I do appreciate the definition. I admit that I was mistaken about the definition of "guys." In my own defense, my adversity to using the term guys in regards to a group of women stems from an ex-girlfriend, who turned out to be quite the man-hating feminazi (not a feminist- she truly believed that women were superior to men), who would go absolutly ballistic when I would use "guys" to refer to a group of women. Perhaps I assumed that it was a more universally offensive term...




rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter








Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 641 days
Last activity: 257 days
AIM:  
#29 Posted on

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Especially considering the fact that these very liberal people were nowhere to be seen when Clinton was rattling his sabre about Iraq. They are not protesting the war, they are protesting Bush, and only because of his political party.


Well Clinton didnt deploy 200,000 troops to the Persian Gulf. Id say his sabre wasnt rattling quite as hard. And even when Clinton did use any kind of military force, against the Iraqis, Al-Quaida, or in Kosovo the anti war folks were quite upset and let people know it. Any President going to war would face the wrath of the anti-war folks. Gore would have the same problem.

Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1329 days
Last activity: 1126 days
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by rockdotcom_2.0
    Well Clinton didnt deploy 200,000 troops to the Persian Gulf. Id say his sabre wasnt rattling quite as hard. And even when Clinton did use any kind of military force, against the Iraqis, Al-Quaida, or in Kosovo the anti war folks were quite upset and let people know it. Any President going to war would face the wrath of the anti-war folks. Gore would have the same problem.

Clinton's "sabre-rattling" was the epitomy of the "hit a camel in the butt" method. Kosovo was a ridiculous situation because there was no overwhelming national interest there other than for the sake of having troops there. It's not like Iraq where there are(as a matter of fact) national security interests involved.



Americans are a resolute people who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world and to ourselves. America is a strong nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers. Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity.
- President George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 1/28/2003
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter








Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 641 days
Last activity: 257 days
AIM:  
#31 Posted on

    Originally posted by Grimis

      Originally posted by rockdotcom_2.0
      Well Clinton didnt deploy 200,000 troops to the Persian Gulf. Id say his sabre wasnt rattling quite as hard. And even when Clinton did use any kind of military force, against the Iraqis, Al-Quaida, or in Kosovo the anti war folks were quite upset and let people know it. Any President going to war would face the wrath of the anti-war folks. Gore would have the same problem.

    Clinton's "sabre-rattling" was the epitomy of the "hit a camel in the butt" method. Kosovo was a ridiculous situation because there was no overwhelming national interest there other than for the sake of having troops there. It's not like Iraq where there are(as a matter of fact) national security interests involved.





You lost me here, Im not debating were we right or wrong in doing any military action. My point is Clinton didnt have the war protesters hounding him as hard because he hadnt deployed almost a quarter million soldiers to the Gulf in preparation for war. Bush 43 has, so he gets the headache.


And what does "hit a camel in the butt" mean?
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1375 days
Last activity: 142 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#32 Posted on
Ah, but the protests started LONG before it was even announced that so many troops would be going there.
Hell, the protests started as soon as Bush mentioned "Iraq" and "war" in the same sentance.
Explain that?




rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter








Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 641 days
Last activity: 257 days
AIM:  
#33 Posted on

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Ah, but the protests started LONG before it was even announced that so many troops would be going there.
    Hell, the protests started as soon as Bush mentioned "Iraq" and "war" in the same sentance.
    Explain that?




Part of the Job. Bush is a big boy, Im sure naked protesters arent keeping him up at night....
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 259 days
Last activity: 60 days
#34 Posted on
I just want to point out that there were people protesting the economic sanctions against Iraq. And the bombing of the Sudan in an effort to get bin Laden. No matter what you do, as a politician or celebrity (any media figure really), if a liberal feels you are out of line, they'll protest. It's just in their roots. Of course, we protest so much these days, that it just becomes a blur, and there's no focus. So I do agree with you there. Non-violent protests have ceased to be effective. We'll just have to wait and see what develops once people start to realize this.

-Jag



Year after year, the United States has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use they could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

-The hypocrite at work.

Scott Summets
Sujuk








Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 3965 days
Last activity: 3934 days
#35 Posted on

    Originally posted by rockdotcom_2.0

      Originally posted by Grimis

        Originally posted by rockdotcom_2.0
        Well Clinton didnt deploy 200,000 troops to the Persian Gulf. Id say his sabre wasnt rattling quite as hard. And even when Clinton did use any kind of military force, against the Iraqis, Al-Quaida, or in Kosovo the anti war folks were quite upset and let people know it. Any President going to war would face the wrath of the anti-war folks. Gore would have the same problem.

      Clinton's "sabre-rattling" was the epitomy of the "hit a camel in the butt" method. Kosovo was a ridiculous situation because there was no overwhelming national interest there other than for the sake of having troops there. It's not like Iraq where there are(as a matter of fact) national security interests involved.





    You lost me here, Im not debating were we right or wrong in doing any military action. My point is Clinton didnt have the war protesters hounding him as hard because he hadnt deployed almost a quarter million soldiers to the Gulf in preparation for war. Bush 43 has, so he gets the headache.


    And what does "hit a camel in the butt" mean?



The hit a camel in the butt reference is in light of Clinton shooting million dollar cruise missles into 10 dollar tents and basically doing nothing of worth except shooting missiles as a feel good measure.



You don't get it boy, this isn't a mudhole... it's an operating table. And I'm the surgeon.
Something tells me to stop with the leg. I don't listen to it.
But where in the world is there in the world
A man so extroardinaire?

C'est moi, c'est moi, I'm forced to admit!
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 days
#36 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.73
Non-violent protests have ceased to be effective.

Unless, of course, they're naked non-violent protests.



It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Janeane Garofalo, Cheer Bear, Aphrodite, a Chihuahua, Data, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Bjork, Spider-Man, Boston, and a Chaotic Good Elvin Bard-Mage.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1329 days
Last activity: 1126 days
#37 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    Non-violent protests have ceased to be effective.

    Unless, of course, they're naked non-violent protests.


Nope....still not effective.



Americans are a resolute people who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world and to ourselves. America is a strong nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers. Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity.
- President George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 1/28/2003
messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 606 days
Last activity: 472 days
AIM:  
#38 Posted on
Ah, but protests are still effective. Support for the war is much, much, much down from where it was. Naked protests are not effective however. It's all in the approach and message.
Brian P. Dermody
Liverwurst
Moderator








Since: 20.9.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 997 days
Last activity: 420 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#39 Posted on




    Originally posted by Stephanie


    You're as old as you feel.

    Steph



I disagree. You're only as old as *who* you feel.



(edited by DJ Ran on 14.2.03 0209)


Modern Humorist
Stephanie
Landjager








Since: 2.1.02
From: Madison, WI

Since last post: 581 days
Last activity: 50 days
#40 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.22

    Originally posted by DJ Ran
      Originally posted by Stephanie
      You're as old as you feel.

      Steph



    I disagree. You're only as old as *who* you feel.



Disgusting.

Steph



I'm going twenty-four hours a day...I can't seem to stop
- "Turn Up The Radio", Autograph
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 NextThread ahead: Miguel Estrada
Next thread: Moseley-Braun throws hat into Dem. primary
Previous thread: A slightly different State of the Union...
(2298 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Really, I gotta admit - I am much more lenient for the Clinton's and Bush's and Edward's of the world. In 72, when my birthday got 116, I was kind of freaking. But, you know, the draft ended the next year, and I was pretty happy.
The W - Current Events & Politics - We need more protesters like this (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.152 seconds.