The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Latest Terrorist attempt (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=21731)

skysidhe 12-29-2009 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawnee123 (Post 621497)
It's my ear that (who?) hates it.

I heard a commercial for some charity the other day:

"You never know how basic essentials are until you have none."

Um, what?

My ear picks up stuff it hates. I don't know if my ear is wrong or right most of the time. Stupid ear.

Oh that is the Tide commercial. That jars me too. It is because basic essentials seems redundant or maybe it has to do with a person who has nothing usually are reduced to living with basics or essentials.

I don't know.

Also,I think it is 'You need enlightening" and not needs but it's just because it feels right. lol

Shawnee123 12-29-2009 02:44 PM

Yeah, that sentence boggles me. Essentials are basic. But of course. But, you know HOW basic because you have none? HUH?

I mean, I get what they're trying to get to: you take the little things, like soap, for granted.

As to needing cleaned or enlightened, I've given up. I mean, I'll still bathe and stuff, but...

(and, I've come full circle. Second time today.)

:lol:

chrisinhouston 12-29-2009 02:45 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Given the statement then the correction by Janet Napolitano I thought this political cartoon from the Houston Chronicle pretty appropriate!

The NY Times said her gaff is just about as good as George Bush's "Heck of a job, Browie!"

Shawnee123 12-29-2009 02:46 PM

:thumbsup:

It WAS the equivalent of "heck of a job."

xoxoxoBruce 12-29-2009 02:54 PM

They should put it in the dictionary as an example of Faux Pas.

It these politicians would only say, "Oops, sorry, that was a slip of the tongue, I didn't really mean that". But they start to scramble like a high school quarterback and just make it worse. Maybe because it wasn't a slip of the tongue, and when they said it, they really believed it? :litebulb:

skysidhe 12-29-2009 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawnee123 (Post 621507)
Yeah, that sentence boggles me. Essentials are basic. But of course. But, you know HOW basic because you have none? HUH?

I mean, I get what they're trying to get to: you take the little things, like soap, for granted.

As to needing cleaned or enlightened, I've given up. I mean, I'll still bathe and stuff, but...

(and, I've come full circle. Second time today.)

:lol:

you funny :D

and no worries your full circles are charming.

DanaC 12-29-2009 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 621512)
They should put it in the dictionary as an example of Faux Pas.

It these politicians would only say, "Oops, sorry, that was a slip of the tongue, I didn't really mean that". But they start to scramble like a high school quarterback and just make it worse. Maybe because it wasn't a slip of the tongue, and when they said it, they really believed it? :litebulb:

Unfortunately, though the public generally express a desire for politicians to admit human frailties in such a manner; the actual result of doing so is a press (and voter) lynching. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

classicman 12-29-2009 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawnee123 (Post 621488)
And, to transpose, it would have been "the car needs cleaning" since I said "needs enlightening."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawnee123 (Post 621321)
I don't think the collective "us" you speak of needs enlightened.

jus sayin. because "the collective "us" you speak of needs enlightening."
would be correct. I'm still not sure about the other. Another reason why I hate grammar.

xoxoxoBruce 12-29-2009 03:05 PM

Yeah, the press can take just the words, often out of context, and skew them in a desired direction. But when somebody is making a statement on camera, and know they fucked up, I should think an immediate admission of that mistake would go well with the voters. I suppose the video could be edited for the same skewing, but someone (internet) would make the full account available. Maybe I'm dreaming.

chrisinhouston 12-29-2009 03:20 PM

Douglas R. Laird was a guest on the Minnesota Public Radio Midday program. . He was Northwest Airline's security directory (worldwide) in the 90's. He's currently a security consultant. The purpose of the airline security director is to in-take all the information from the govt and make recommendations to captains, and design airline wide security.

Major points he made:

Very dubious of 1hr rule. He does not know any security professionals or captains that can make sense of that rule.

No advancement in passenger screening from the past decade has actually increased security. Checked baggage security with computer tomography is quite effective.

Just because someone is on a watch list doesn't mean the government wants that person to be denied boarding or even tipped off that they are on a list.

Pre-9/11 airlines used the CAPS profiling system (based on financial information and flight history) which would have flagged the DTW terrorist for additional screening. That system no longer exists. It's been replaced by a DHS system. He recommends allowing airlines to use CAPS again for secondary screening flags.

He recommends we send all the back scatter body scanners to the major gateways of US bound flights instead of scanning people in or leaving the US. Third world screening is an issue, so focus should be on major gateways to the US.

chrisinhouston 12-29-2009 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawnee123 (Post 621509)
:thumbsup:

It WAS the equivalent of "heck of a job."

Well, her statement was her own and not from the President so you can argue that one either way. Perhaps it was more like Alexander Haig announcing "I'm in charge here" or Rumsfeld going on about "shock and awe"

The frustrating part is that the Republicans will now claim it is because Democrats are soft on terror and the Democrats will go on about Republicans holding up funding or holding up on nominations, both of which have happened to some extent. They just don't get it, this is a national issue and most Americans are tired of everything in Washington being about party platforms and ideology and partisan politics. I'm 53 and I've never seen this land so polarized politically. Maybe we just need Klaatu and his robot, Gort to pay Earth a visit and give us a good lecture! ;)

Shawnee123 12-29-2009 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 621520)
jus sayin. because "the collective "us" you speak of needs enlightening."
would be correct. I'm still not sure about the other. Another reason why I hate grammar.

You're right...I said "enlightened." I don't know. I needs me some of that there enlightenin' stuff.

classicman 12-29-2009 03:44 PM

Actually Shaw, I have been hearing the (to be) not said so much lately that this has become a pet peeve of mine. Where are all the friggin grammar nazis today? Sheesh! We needs helpin 'ere.

Shawnee123 12-29-2009 03:48 PM

Yeah, my pet peeve is "who" and "that." Even though it's correct either way, it seems to fairly shout at me. Of course, when I set my mind to dwelling on something...

;)

classicman 12-29-2009 04:00 PM

whom vs. who
and
upon vs. on
are mine . . . reasons 2,564,389 and 2,564,390 that I hate grammar


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:46 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.