Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

a unique american phenomena

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
historian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-14-04 03:01 PM
Original message
a unique american phenomena
we have an amazing ability to elect ignorant quasi illiterate incoherent fools for president. Reagan, Bush (at least nixon had a brain) and our old friend Quayle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JuniorPlankton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-14-04 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. That's "Phenomenon" btw n/t
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
historian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-14-04 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. no its not
thats plural for phenomenon - but lets not argue over something which has died long ago - proper use of the english language
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-14-04 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Yes, phenomena is plural for phenomenon but you are only talking about one
phenomenon.

The phenomenon of Americans electing idiots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
historian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-14-04 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. all right
I concede - there goes my self image as a born again oscar wilde
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-14-04 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Yes, but
George AWOL BushCo is phenom unto himself. So that's at least two phenomewhatevers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indigobusiness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-14-04 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Exactly...two instances of a single phenomenon don't make for phenomena.
Historian should brush up on his proper usage. Thousands of instances of abused English is a phenomenon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-14-04 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
17. No, it's multiple instances
Electing Reagan - Phenomenon
Electing W. - Phenomenon
Electing Reagan and W. - Phenomena
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-14-04 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. Then it would be plural, so the article "a" is wrong...
The original poster just made a mistake...using phenomena instead of phenomenon.

Actually, she is stating that the phenomenon is electing illiterate dumbasses.

Your post just shows the examples that prove her phenomenon true.

(And I agree with the poster above that this is truly petty, BUT the OP was making a point about literacy, so I think that is why people jumped on it.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indigobusiness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-14-04 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. You beat me to it...Phenomenon is the most
abused word in the English language. According to Webster's.



But, his salient point was spot on.

(I can't believe I am so petty)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rogerashton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-14-04 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. It isn't, actually.
"Actually" is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-14-04 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #12
21. It's not obviously? or literally?
--IMM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rogerashton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 05:46 AM
Response to Reply #21
25. It's obviously not literally!
Or is it literally not obviously?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-14-04 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
7. Quayle was only VP, not Pres
that's why we still have the U.S.
they were complaining about him saying "nucular" in '88 already
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-14-04 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
8. I Thought It Was Supposed To Be Uniquely
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-14-04 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. I would say
both usages are correct, but I like 'uniquely' better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dpibel Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-14-04 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. then again...
Edited on Fri May-14-04 10:41 PM by dpibel
Edited to admit that I can't figure it out. And I'm supposed to know these things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Servo300 Donating Member (653 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-14-04 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
10. when exactly was Quayle president??

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indigobusiness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-14-04 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
11. Bush needs a phenenema...
there, that's better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-14-04 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Prime the phenenema with a shot of Phenobarbitol
and purify the Bush. Make him pure, so he might -- at long last -- tell the truth. Now that would be phenomenal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-14-04 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. and don't forget to sage him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CityZen-X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-14-04 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
16. I can't agree with that assessment!
The last one we had was James Carter, God bless him and all of his endeavors!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immune2irony Donating Member (86 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-14-04 11:09 PM
Response to Original message
18. Yes. They're called "Republicans"
Name one stupid Democrat president. One.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-14-04 11:10 PM
Response to Original message
19. You are really sure we elected them?
I'm not so sure anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SarahB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-14-04 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
23. Dissuasion by mass media propaganda
As well as the dumbing down of critical thinking within the public school system (i.e. teachers forced to teach for mastery tests).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maggrwaggr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 12:11 AM
Response to Original message
24. our culture reveres the ignorant redneck who hasn't had the book learnin'
I'm not sure why this is, probably goes back to some sort of anti-British sentiment.

Don't trust the smart folks, trust the common man, even if he's completely uneducated.

That has been twisted around to where a preppie rich kid like GWB can convince the uneducated and under-gifted to believe he's one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rogerashton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 05:49 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. I think we got it from the British.
Good, sound, fox-chasin' country people dontcha know. Can't trust those fancy city bankers and university boffins, what, what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu May 09th 2024, 02:41 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC