mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Profile: saintvivant
About
User Name: saintvivant
Forum Rank: Member
Gender: None Specified
Statistics
Joined: Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Last Visit: Sunday, April 26, 2015 8:15:58 PM
Number of Posts: 35
[0.00% of all post / 0.01 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Why do the Saudi Arabia, and US, others not hit the snake's head 'Iran' instead of hitting its tail
Posted: Sunday, April 26, 2015 7:34:08 PM
At the moment we are allies with Iran in the fight against ISIS in northern Iraq. But we are supporting the Saudis in Yemen against the Iranian supported Houthis. So I don't think we know who to bomb. The big winner in this is the military-industrial complex who many feel work with the CIA to foment unrest so that they can get richer. The circumstantial evidence for this scenario seems to be substantial. So maybe we will bomb Iran one day. Give it time. We have a military presence in over 150 countries and even though we spend more on our military and its weapons of war than all the rest of the world, these things take time. Perhaps, our military strategies are not always altruistic or for the strategic defense of the homeland as is claimed but are propelled by the interests of those who make their money from war.
Topic: Hawk
Posted: Sunday, December 7, 2014 11:24:14 PM
From the OED: hawk, V.1....
3.To hawk at: To fly at or attack on the wing as a hawk does. Of a person: To fly a hawk at. It offers these examples:1820 Scott Abbot XX, "To hawk one brother with another, is less than fair play. 1886 H. Smart Outsider I. ii. 28 Accustomed to be welcomed with smiles and even hawked at by young ladies...
It also references as obsolete the following definition 4.To hawk after or for: meaning to hunt after, to endeavor to hunt or to gain. So I believe that in the instance quoted from the movie hawk means to go after, or to nag as suggested is the correct definition.
Topic: A description of
Posted: Saturday, December 6, 2014 9:35:21 PM
I think both sentences are a little stilted. I would write it this way: Although, Lakoff's theory is not easy to describe...
Topic: befitting a whore
Posted: Sunday, June 8, 2014 10:57:30 PM
Try meretricious
Topic: “perhaps the last active Mousketeer east of the White House”
Posted: Monday, September 30, 2013 11:06:26 PM
I think the phrase would be creepy because of the association of a 53 year old with these pristine teens represented by the Disney mouseketeers. Hundreds of thousands of youthful viewers joined the Mickey Mouse Club which was led by a young adult man who pitched a kind of teen moralism as a regular part of the show. So an older man claiming to be a mouseketeer to an 18 year old is provocative, I suppose, or perhaps an attempt at humor but the author thinks it is creepy. I read Catcher in the Rye in high school because it was banned. Lots of my friends and classmates read it for the same reason. For a US teenager of that era the book hit a nerve in regard to the phoniness of the establishment as one saw it through teachers. parents, religious figures, etc. and it dealt with teenage alienation. Especially since it was banned from the school library, we thought it was great.
Topic: Any recommendations/suggestions on History Magazines
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 2:07:57 PM
I like Smithsonian:www.smithsonianmagazine.com
Topic: Name for an aggressive and successful company
Posted: Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:00:09 PM
Try cutthroat businessmen or predatory equity investment firm.
Topic: PANTAGAMY
Posted: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 6:20:13 PM
The OED says that pantagamy is "A communistic system of complex marriage, in which all the men and women in a household or community are regarded as married to each other, as formerly practiced among the Perfectionists at Onieda Creek, US." OED says that the word is an illerterate formation for "pantogamy" from the Greek panto meaning "all" and Greek gamy meaning marriage.
Topic: haiku complete
Posted: Friday, October 19, 2012 12:46:23 AM
Last Line: So corny, so sad
Topic: Political debate..
Posted: Saturday, October 13, 2012 2:16:03 PM
These are interesting quotes but when put in a certain context they become enigmatic. For example, the Jefferson quote comes from a man whose principle business was slavery. Slavery was permitted by law and Jefferson did do things like having run away slaves pursued and flogged as punishment. That is now by definition an "injustice" that then was the law of the land. Yet Jefferson, Washington and other founding fathers were slave owners. Later they tried to correct these personal flaws by freeing their slaves. This has to be one of history's greatest ironies: that men who were slave owners founeded a country based on "inalienable" human rights, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", etc.: a country whose impact on the world is so significant that it is hard to fathom.
The Lincoln quote does not seem to allow for an instance where the stong have taken from the weak and the weak simply take it back due to their superior numbers or determination. The French Revolution, the coup in Libya, the Syrian conflict are examples.
As to the Adams quote, the US has almost always been in debt. The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 in which some US citizens rebeled against a federal excise tax levied in 1791 on whiskey that was intended to pay for the national debt that was incurred because the war against the British cost a lot of money is a good example of this.
These old sayings and quotes, often taken out of context stir the blood of the patriot but unfortunately they belie the reality that when they wrote the US Constitution they did not allow for women to vote, permitted slavery and invented politics. The fact that the Constitution was flawed does not negate the good that it has done. The amendments to the Costitution have helped to negate the mistakes of the founding fathers.
One last aphorism comes to mind: "the devil is in the details".