You referred to me as a lot of things without knowing me from a lump of coal, as Nick Saban would say. So frankly, Im not concerned with what you think.
And give me a break..it is obvious we were all nitpicking at eachother's words and making assumptions and generalizations about eachother's posts..just like Phin said. Stop acting like you guys are are these pristine intellectual referees who are incapable of doing these things. You especially Rich.
What have I referred to you as?
Why do you keep lumping myself and Rich's post together? Why are you atributing my posts with the post's that Rich writes?
Why don't you give me an specific example instead of making broad accusations. I have tried to carry on a dialogue with you. I ask questions and you ignore them. I ask for specific expamples and you cite none. Show me an example of how I nit pick at your words. Show me an example where I said or come across as a pristine intellectual referee who is incapable of doing these things. You make accusations but you give no examples.
Example: "We all know that Fred and Bob have no money. They're going to try and take something without paying from my store." OK how would you normally understand this statement? Would the "they're" be referring to anyone, to criminals in general, to Sally and Sue? Or would people normally understand the "they're" to be referring to Fred and Bob.
RIGHT...The sentence SPECIFICALLY begins by speaking DIRECTLY about Bob and Fred. Obama's sentence starts out with "Nobody thinks that McCain and Bush have an answer...so they're". "They're" is referring to "nobody" as in nobody in the opposition. Look at that and tell me it's the same kind of sentence?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If the sentence started out "McCain and Bush don't think that they have an answer..so they're", then you would have a stronger point. And before you accuse me of dicing up the semantics, just note that it was you who started talking about grammar.
Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said. "You know, 'He's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name,' you know, 'He doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.'"
RIGHT...The sentence SPECIFICALLY begins by speaking DIRECTLY about Bob and Fred.
No the sentence starts off with "We", "We all know ...", compared with "Nobody thinks that ..." Seems similar to me. Please show me how it is not the same kind of sentence. We refers to everyone that I was talking to and about. Then the sentence goes on and the "they'er" is clearly understood to indicate Bob and Fred and not the collective "we" because that is how pronouns work.
You go on to equate "nobody" with "they're" and then to define "nobody/they're" as nobody(all?) in the opposition. That is not the way grammer is normally used. Nobody applies to everyone because that is how it was used in the sentence. Nobody refers to Obama and his camp because it applies. Nobody would also refer to those in McCain's camp and to Bush and McCain also. It is obviously a collective "nobody" because that is how it was used. Nobody over there, or nobody in that camp, nobody in their right mind is specific. "Nobody" with no specifics is general and is understood to be exactly that.
Even if "nobody" referred to only those in opposition it would still apply to Bush and McCain. It would have applied to any and everyone in the McCain camp. Not just to fruit cakes and nuts but to all. That is what a general term does. It includes all equally unless you designate it otherwise. I really can't see how you don't undersatnd this.
If nobody only refers to people in the opposition then would that mean Obama and his camp believed that McCain did have the answers? Your interpretation makes no sense and is not the normal way people understand language.
Not to mention, how are we supposed to dissect multi-layered, purposely ambiguous political rhetoric using basic grammar rules? Just face the fact that Obama wasn't singling out those two people as the ones creating scare tactics.
I don't think that is an accurate statement. That is what you want it to be but that does not make it true.
Yes he did single them out. That is why he used their names. Out of all of the "nobody(s)" he singled out two of them and accused them of using race to scare voters about himself.
I already said that Obama could have been extra clear about it and said he was only talking about that group of people, but you need to quit acting like he singled out McCain and Bush, that is not what he said
Maybe you need to quit acting like Obama did not say what he said. He played the race card.