Another one that people misuse all the time is the word "nauseous" which really would mean you make others feel sick, not that you are feeling sick yourself. That would be nauseated. People should say I feel nauseated rather than nauseous.
But over time, commonality becomes proper And why is this about pride in one's language? Should we go to Britain and pay homage to them for giving us our language? What about all the other foreign words in our language. Should we go to Mexico and tell them thank you for giving us the words Culupa?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nauseous You can be more specific and use nauseated or nauseating, but nauseous is not incorrect in that instance.
I disagree with every bit of this. 1) We are already withdrawing forces from those countries and closing bases. We've been doing it for years. There are very good reasons not to yank everyone out and close shop. Our bases in Europe support our operations in the Middle East and Asia. They also influence the countries where they exist, helping to extend US influence. They act as a marker for any power, including Putin's oligarchy, who might decide in the future to increase its own influence in Europe, for example. We are putting missile defense facilities in Europe directed at the possible threat from Iran. Do you seriously think that absent our bases there, we'd have nearly as much influence as we do today? That returning to the "Fortress America" prior to Pearl Harbor is a good idea? And why do you think we still have bases in Japan? You used to work for a newspaper. Surely you recall why those bases were there then, and why they are there now. They also support our efforts in Afghanistan and this "War on Terror." 2) As I said, we are continuing to reduce the number of bases across the country. To close a bunch of them right now would be a disaster for the economies of those states where they exist and they would scream bloody murder, and have every right to do so. The majority of the bases serve a very good purpose. I shouldn't have to add that we are, still, fighting two wars. Redundant bases will continue to be closed. Politically, it is impossible to simply close every one of them immediately. 3) This one is so wrong, and so wrong headed, that it astonishes me that you would even propose it. Do you seriously believe that the problem with healthcare in this country could be positively affected by walking away from the poor and the helpless around the world, who have for decades seen America as a beacon of hope, simply because they have corrupt governments? That isn't an America that I could be proud of. We have more than enough food and medicine right here in this country to take care of every US citizen who might need it. Hell, we export the stuff for profit. All it takes is the national will to take care of our own. We don't have to turn our backs on the poor and needy of this world to do it. 4) I thought you wanted to walk away from the world. So now you are proposing that we threaten and possibly invade one of our neighbors? Are you, with all due respect, nuts? What could we possibly gain from such an act. We would gain nothing. We would make an enemy of the people of Mexico, who are suffering from the hands of a small number of greedy lunatics. We would be denounced across the world for doing it. We would spend untold billions attempting to "take care of" those areas, and we would fail. 5) So don't allow children living in this country to attend school that don't speak English? Brilliant. My sister taught English as a second language to students in elementary school for years before retiring. She also has a masters degree in English. Believe it or not, we are quite capable of handling this "problem." 6) So a "panel" with a secret vote is going to decide what money gets spent and what money doesn't? How democratic is that? Are you kidding me? I can't imagine that even the radical Roberts Court would sign off on that, thumbs. 7) So now you are going to fine mom and pop businesses for using illegal labor $10 grand, a hell of a lot of money for a small business, whether or not they knew the person or persons were illegal? Why not simply come right out and say you're for booting all the millions of illegal workers in the US today and be done with it? Clearly, that's what you want to do. You seriously believe that will be good for the US economy? What if some of those people can't even remember living anywhere else than the United States? Would it matter to you? Sorry to "jump on you," thumbs, but I really toned this post down a lot from what I could have written. I just think you are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Agree...unfortunately. However, words have shades of meaning that are lost with that simplicity. It is easier to describe something as "blue" rather than aqua, azure, cobalt, royal, neon, turquoise, etc. However, cobalt and turquoise are very different.
I am becoming radicalized in my old age. :grin: BTW, I never feel you are "jumping on me." I enjoy pushing the envelope of thought -- with civility -- which often generates uncharted ideas for solutions to problems. Now, warfare has changed so radically that it may be th time for "fortress America." Gradually changing our strategic outlook should begin now as we dispense with the need for pilots in aerial warfare and the need for massive forces when we can mobilize so much more quickly than in the days of Pearl Harbor. Do the Mideastern countries give oil away? No, but they are not unpopular either. We need to use food in much the same way -- especially in light of our current economic decline. I do not wish to punish children but rather staunch the flow of illegal immigration. Free education and medical care are enormous incentives to come here illegally -- especially if pregnant or in need of a job. If you will notice, I would also like incentives for children to grow up as a bi-lingual or tri-lingual citizen. As far as a "line item veto," I really like the concept but, if you put it in the hands of one person, he or she becomes too powerful. That is why I suggest a majority party with two votes, a minority party with two votes and an administrative (Presidential) vote. I specified in secret because of the enormous pressure by outside forces, vis a vis payoffs or retribution.
Glad I didn't tick you off. Warfare is changing, and radically, but these things take time. Right now, we've already moved away from the heavy armored division model to much more mobile and high tech brigade sized (and smaller) units, who have the ability to take on much more than such a formation would have been able to a decade or two in the past. That has saved money, made our much smaller armed forces still effective, and also saved many of our people from becoming casualties. Everyday we use very small drones to search out the enemy in areas of Afghanistan. I'm not talking about the much more sophisticated bomb carrying drones, for which I think the President deserves a lot of credit for ramping up in both use and quantities, but rather little things not much different in size from the big remote control planes hobbyists play with here. Communications between troops and vehicles have been radically improved, resulting in quicker response times and saving lives. However, we still don't have the technology to "dispense" with actual aircraft with pilots. While under development, that's still quite a way off from practical use. And, of course, I completely disagree with disengaging around the world, a world that is more interdependent everyday. A world where goods and services move across oceans, through choke points, that we must have the ability to defend. A world where we have a lot of potential enemies who continue to ramp up their own military capabilities. We cannot stand down. If we do, someone is going to put a knife straight up America's ass. Our allies have become militarily weaker in a lot of ways. Great Britain, our strongest ally, is currently slashing their military budget, something that "liberal" in the White House is privately very angry about and something worrying more countries than just the United States. In an uncertain world, there has to be a major player willing to defend democracy and freedom. I know you care about both. So did those congressmen in the 1930's, who scoffed at Roosevelt's attempts to enlarge the military to face the Nazi threat. We do use food and other needed items in conjunction with our foreign policy. Would you have us jack up the price of food and the other things so that those in need simply don't get it? These are poor countries. While some of them have dictators who have villas in Switzerland, it's not like the vast majority of the people of those countries can do anything to prevent it. And we can't topple every dictator we disagree with. One, that wouldn't jive with your "Fortress America," and two, history has shown that it doen't work out all that great in far too many instances. Would you have those people simply starve? I'm sure that isn't something you desire, but it is a likely consequence. As for children here in this country, while you may not want to "punish" them, it would be the result of the policies you advocate, in my opinion. Gotta run!
how much could we lower the deficit if we got rid of all these police state measures that bush and obama keep putting in? how much does it cost to maintain the TSA and all their glorified mall security guards and body scanners?
