bleeding heart

If a Mormom can be accepted (give or take) by the hardline Evangelical base, then it would appear exact religious affiliation is not too important. A candidate's Catholicism likely won't greatly influence a Catholic's voting choice. The candidate running with Biden did better among Jewish voters than the earlier candidate running with Lieberman, for example.

As determined by......?

So...your opinion is that Sharkman isn't taking a "partisan position"?

Christ's sake! Thank you, Bubber. That is exactly the meaning; and exactly the trivial error that has caused the confusion. Correct that: the confusion is caused by people whose partisanship makes them unable to comprehend pretty elementary English.

Yes, it is a nonsensical sentence, which is why we know the meaning depends--crucially depends--on the preceding sentence, and the context surrounding that bit. This is not difficult. For anyone who klnows anything at all about grammar--say, 7th grade level--it is plain as day. And yes, it is a (slight) grammatical error. By definition. That's not even disputable. But it's a trivial error, given that it's spoken, and that the meaning is plain. Well...to most people.

Ah. Another right-wing politician who admires Ayn Rand.

Well, the whole thing makes me smile, because it's a funny story, and because people are, well, quite funny sometimes.

Well, I'm not an "Obama fan," but sure he did. "That" instead of "those," with a faint confusion (for those searching for errors) over a delayed grammatical subject. But it's so trivial, especially in spoken speech; the real mistake is the misattribution of his very obvious meaning. If you want to talk about bad things Obama has done, we can start with a murderous little policy using drone strikes. Exept Romney supporters are, I presume, approximately 100% supportive of such a thing, so I think Obama's campaign is pretty safe on that particular front....

Yes, an amazing episode, really top-notch.

No one asks for equal rights. Because the religious bigots would scream "no!" People demand equal rights. In every case. Period. Yep. Yes, really.

Well, we could quibble about whether or not you "know" me...but at any rate, at least in a sense, you do know one! (And I have met a few. We're like a secret club, either stubborn or with more refined tastes than the planet's majority.) That is exactly the method, and the only one. I smoked for thirty years--heavily--so I believe anyone can do it. (But I assure you I am not one of those unbearable, evangelical ex-smokers. They're the worst.)

Leave out the first six words, and you're dead on! Except maybe the smokes, wonderful as they are...I still miss them.

Sounds reasonable. I had my doubts it would occur, for reasons vaguely to do with Bill Graham's remarks in my signature.

"Don't like" is too generous, but yes.

With a nod to msj, who seditiously produced the quote in context: I mean, good lord, how are people misreading this? If Obama was saying what some people think he was saying...it wouldn't even make logical sense; in which case, their criticism would be of garbled grammar, not some point he didn't make. Further, our esteemed grammarians think a sentence stands alone without relation to preceding sentences. Their college essays must have been painful to endure! Surely there's plenty of legitimate criticism of Obama; why invent stuff out of thin air?

No one should eat eggs anyway...only because they're terrible. Broccoli too.

Yeah, that was an odd comment.

"Gang up"? I didn't realize that provinces had delicate feelings, and were so sensitive. Edit: No, that's not quite true; I did realize it, after an insult-laden discussion with poster "Claudius." Criticizing a province hurts some people's feelings, evidently. Now, what sort of personal identity depends on an accident of geography is itself maybe an interesting topic......

If they're fulfilling the (stated) capitalist ethos in such an explicit way, what's your issue with them?

Ok, but this isn't a political opinion so much as it is an elitist worldview. One that we don't share.

A sexual predator; and a sadistic torturer; and a multiple murderer. He's the poster-boy for the violent and dangerous criminal. Heck, I agree with you, that most criminals are ordinary and not awful people at all. But folks like Bernardo..they're the worst of the worst.

To be fair, the majority of the Earth's inhabitants already were aware of that.

This isn't really a response. You're saying no crimes have been committed...because charges haven't been laid? So you don't think the Iranians, the Saudis, the Chinese, and on and on, have committed any crimes? Because you have faith in the system? I don't get it.

Part of the defense for these men is that their wealth and "business sense" somehow magically prove them ideal for high office. So your argument is with their supporters.