The Summerize Obama's Speech Contest!!!!

[G.T.]

You are wrong. I'd only got in the mix since word processors. The proper contraction is and always has been "I'ld". I'd is "I had", as in I'd better go", I would is I'ld, as in "I'ld have gone". At any rate as a contraction it's more of a colloquialism than acceptable written English. Properly it should be avoided, so if you're going to complain about grammar... don't use it.

False, I'd is a doubly used contraction keyed by its context. I'ld is no longer proper and is no longer accepted. Go to school, check it out.

Neither is actually proper. The rule is to avoid using them at all. It's been a while, but if they changed the rule it's one I didn't know about. My education, which was quite good, taught I'd: I had. I'ld: I would.

Enough of it. I still hate grammar nazi's on message boards.

Speech Nazis are ok, though.

 

[BenNatuf]

Then you need to go find a grammar nazi. I didn't criticize your grammar, I criticized your inability to spell. But hey, that's just me.



I have no idea where you learned the basic of the English language, but you should demand a refund - and fast.

Basics... dumbass.

And, I'll put my 4.0 in grammar and English composition from a good catholic University up against your high school English teacher anytime.

Ooo!!!! B'en got a 4.0 in Grammar - in College. WTF kind of college teaches grammar, and what kind of remedial student has to to take it?

It's called English composition dumbass. You know, where you write papers and your grammar is graded.

The point is, it's a fucking message board, not an English class, so take your arrogant stupid shit and stick it in your wide ass.

You sound awfully angry this morning, B'en. You turned it into a grammar class. Remember? I'd reconsider.

No, I remember you trying to complain about spelling on a message board. Which would be pretty standard for a liberal trying to deflect from the thread.

 

[BenNatuf]

False, I'd is a doubly used contraction keyed by its context. I'ld is no longer proper and is no longer accepted. Go to school, check it out.

Neither is actually proper. The rule is to avoid using them at all. It's been a while, but if they changed the rule it's one I didn't know about. My education, which was quite good, taught I'd: I had. I'ld: I would.

Enough of it. I still hate grammar nazi's on message boards.

Speech Nazis are ok, though.

last i checked when the President gave a speech it was for public consumption and valid for analysis.

BTW, you're free to give your own analysis, there are no nazi's here stopping you.

 

[G.T.]

Neither is actually proper. The rule is to avoid using them at all. It's been a while, but if they changed the rule it's one I didn't know about. My education, which was quite good, taught I'd: I had. I'ld: I would.

Enough of it. I still hate grammar nazi's on message boards.

Speech Nazis are ok, though.

last i checked when the President gave a speech it was for public consumption and valid for analysis.

Making a giggly summary thread where you pimp for teh lulz is why the President gives a speech?

Grow up, dude.

He took all of the criticisms he had been facing (and it appeared no matter his action, he'd have the same amount of criticisms in one form or another), and he attempted to address them. If he was able to reach his fingertips through your television and literally massage your fucking brain, you'd have a thread about "he missed a spot!"

 

[8537]

Basics... dumbass.

And, I'll put my 4.0 in grammar and English composition from a good catholic University up against your high school English teacher anytime.

Ooo!!!! B'en got a 4.0 in Grammar - in College. WTF kind of college teaches grammar, and what kind of remedial student has to to take it?

It's called English composition dumbass. You know, where you write papers and your grammar is graded.

You're the on who called it Grammar. Here, let's review:

I'll put my 4.0 in grammar and English composition from a good catholic University

No, I remember you trying to complain about spelling on a message board. Which would be pretty standard for a liberal trying to deflect from the thread.

Well, you'd think a 4.0 in "grammar" at the college level would teach one to spell "summarize". But of course, you chose to delve into a stupid claim about the contraction of I would instead.

 

[G.T.]

BTW, you're free to give your own analysis, there are no nazi's here stopping you.

post #28

 

[G.T.]

Ooo!!!! B'en got a 4.0 in Grammar - in College. WTF kind of college teaches grammar, and what kind of remedial student has to to take it?

It's called English composition dumbass. You know, where you write papers and your grammar is graded.

You're the on who called it Grammar. Here, let's review:

I'll put my 4.0 in grammar and English composition from a good catholic University

No, I remember you trying to complain about spelling on a message board. Which would be pretty standard for a liberal trying to deflect from the thread.

Well, you'd think a 4.0 in "grammar" at the college level would teach one to spell "summarize". But of course, you chose to delve into a stupid claim about the contraction of I would instead.

It's apparent to me that the second sentence should not have started with "which."

 

[BenNatuf]

It's called English composition dumbass. You know, where you write papers and your grammar is graded.

You're the on who called it Grammar. Here, let's review:

I'll put my 4.0 in grammar and English composition from a good catholic University

No, I remember you trying to complain about spelling on a message board. Which would be pretty standard for a liberal trying to deflect from the thread.

Well, you'd think a 4.0 in "grammar" at the college level would teach one to spell "summarize". But of course, you chose to delve into a stupid claim about the contraction of I would instead.

It's apparent to me that the second sentence should not have started with "which."

You mean as opposed to starting one with "But"?

 

[G.T.]

You're the on who called it Grammar. Here, let's review:

I'll put my 4.0 in grammar and English composition from a good catholic University




Well, you'd think a 4.0 in "grammar" at the college level would teach one to spell "summarize". But of course, you chose to delve into a stupid claim about the contraction of I would instead.

It's apparent to me that the second sentence should not have started with "which."

You mean as opposed to starting one with "But"?

No, it shouldn't have been a second sentence but a second clause of the first sentence.

 

[WillowTree]

I heard nancy said:

"We'll have to finish helping the rebel army to find out who's in it"

 

[IHBF]

More speech summaries, please.


P.S. what the fuck is "I'ld"?

 

[WillowTree]

Did the bastich tell us how much this shit was gonna cost us? I missed the speech. I knew I'd gag through the whole damn lie so I skipped it.

 

[bucs90]

The Obama encore speech, to be given today:

"To all my critics out there in hindsight of my speech........did ya'll notice I'm black? Huh?"

 

[bucs90]

Obummer: "I had to give this speech today......didn't wanna miss the good basketball games on the last few days. I mean, who'd have thunk, Virginina Commonwealth over Kansas for the Final Four? I mean they make it, and Butler makes another amazing run, I really didn't think they'd............huh? Who said....what? Oh oh oh, right, sorry, um.......back to Syria. We took action on Syria because I am a......huh? Oh, shit, right. Libya, we took action on Libya under my leadership because......er...damn it, hold on.......guys, it's Hillary on the phone I gotta take this."

 

[BenNatuf]

Speech Nazis are ok, though.

last i checked when the President gave a speech it was for public consumption and valid for analysis.

Making a giggly summary thread where you pimp for teh lulz is why the President gives a speech?

Grow up, dude.

Grow some fucking skin. Each of the summarized versions I've given is an accurate assessment of what he said.

He took all of the criticisms he had been facing (and it appeared no matter his action, he'd have the same amount of criticisms in one form or another), and he attempted to address them. If he was able to reach his fingertips through your television and literally massage your fucking brain, you'd have a thread about "he missed a spot!"

I didn't hear him mention the lawlessness of the action... did you? I also didn't hear him address who the rebels are,... did you? I did hear him flat out lie and say we weren't supporting them, and in the next sentence talk about blowing up tanks and artillery, which to my knowledge... don't fucking fly.

I know, I know, it's so hard for him. I suppose you miss the irony of complaining about how hard it is for him while you falsely claim he addressed everything because he's trying so hard. The man is the dumbest POS to ever occupy the WH. Even when he does the right thing, he does it for the wrong fucking reason. Do you actually buy the idea of "humanitarian" bombs? What do they do explode and heal everybody? The idea behind humanitarian aid is to NOT KILL anybody if you can avoid it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Summary:

the speech was excellent, even if the policy is wrong. Anyone who supports the policy but is still bashing the speech has ODS.

I don't support the policy, but the president's explanation and defense of it was superb. No, it didn't change my mind.

It's even more depressing when bad ideas can be eloquently and convincingly promoted and defended.

 

[NYcarbineer]

last i checked when the President gave a speech it was for public consumption and valid for analysis.

Making a giggly summary thread where you pimp for teh lulz is why the President gives a speech?

Grow up, dude.

Grow some fucking skin. Each of the summarized versions I've given is an accurate assessment of what he said.

He took all of the criticisms he had been facing (and it appeared no matter his action, he'd have the same amount of criticisms in one form or another), and he attempted to address them. If he was able to reach his fingertips through your television and literally massage your fucking brain, you'd have a thread about "he missed a spot!"

I didn't hear him mention the lawlessness of the action... did you? I also didn't hear him address who the rebels are,... did you? I did hear him flat out lie and say we weren't supporting them, and in the next sentence talk about blowing up tanks and artillery, which to my knowledge... don't fucking fly.

I know, I know, it's so hard for him. I suppose you miss the irony of complaining about how hard it is for him while you falsely claim he addressed everything because he's trying so hard. The man is the dumbest POS to ever occupy the WH. Even when he does the right thing, he does it for the wrong fucking reason. Do you actually buy the idea of "humanitarian" bombs? What do they do explode and heal everybody? The idea behind humanitarian aid is to NOT KILL anybody if you can avoid it.

Do you support the action itself? Did you support the invasion and 'liberation' of Iraq?

 

[BenNatuf]

Summary:

the speech was excellent, even if the policy is wrong. Anyone who supports the policy but is still bashing the speech has ODS.

I don't support the policy, but the president's explanation and defense of it was superb. No, it didn't change my mind.

It's even more depressing when bad ideas can be eloquently and convincingly promoted and defended.

You think a speach where you claim America refusing to lead would be a betrayal of who we are followed by we give up leadership on wednesday is an "excellent" speech?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA.....

What a gem!

 

[BenNatuf]

Making a giggly summary thread where you pimp for teh lulz is why the President gives a speech?

Grow up, dude.

Grow some fucking skin. Each of the summarized versions I've given is an accurate assessment of what he said.

He took all of the criticisms he had been facing (and it appeared no matter his action, he'd have the same amount of criticisms in one form or another), and he attempted to address them. If he was able to reach his fingertips through your television and literally massage your fucking brain, you'd have a thread about "he missed a spot!"

I didn't hear him mention the lawlessness of the action... did you? I also didn't hear him address who the rebels are,... did you? I did hear him flat out lie and say we weren't supporting them, and in the next sentence talk about blowing up tanks and artillery, which to my knowledge... don't fucking fly.

I know, I know, it's so hard for him. I suppose you miss the irony of complaining about how hard it is for him while you falsely claim he addressed everything because he's trying so hard. The man is the dumbest POS to ever occupy the WH. Even when he does the right thing, he does it for the wrong fucking reason. Do you actually buy the idea of "humanitarian" bombs? What do they do explode and heal everybody? The idea behind humanitarian aid is to NOT KILL anybody if you can avoid it.

Do you support the action itself? Did you support the invasion and 'liberation' of Iraq?

I do think its the right thing to do (not for any BS humanitarian crap though), and I'll support it when it becomes lawful to do.

Yes I did support Iraq... still do. I like victory!!!

What does that have to do with the BS speech that contradicted itself from one sentence to the next and didn't cover ANY of the questions people are asking? Further, many of his "justifications" were severe exagerations of the facts or just flat out lies. The only thing he did was regurgitate the same crap we've been being told for days by the talking heads.

 

[Grace]

More explanations and someone responding to what he said vs the facts:

FACT CHECK: How Obama's Libya claims fit the facts - Yahoo! News