If he were a little less crazy, I wouldn't vote for him.
(Note that you should've used the subjunctive case, as did I.)
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Entitlements?
- Thread starter YmirGF
- Start date
(Note that you should've used the subjunctive case, as did I.)
If it would help our country, I could vote for a crazy guy.
I'm surprised to see you say this Matt.
Ron Paul would take the hatchet out and cut so deep we all would cringe.
Speak for yerself, toots.....I'd rejoice!
I know we need to take our medicine and I would, I might hold my nose however. :sorry1:
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
No, the subjunctive is not necessary. I subscribe to the more intuitive rules of French, which uses the subjunctive in many cases where it makes sense, but not in "if" statements like mine. Either one is fine in English, really, but I prefer the past tense, rather than the subjunctive in case like this.
Fine! Don't take my sage advice.
You'll wallow in unrevoltingness.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
So would I. That's the problem in this case, though: it wouldn't help our country.
You should know by now I'm not a staunch democrat. They tend to agree more with what I want out of the government than others, but I just want the best candidate for the job.
Exactly. That's one main problem. He wants to get rid of the income tax, but not replace it with anything. We are spending $3.5 trillion. The budget deficit is $1.3 trillion. We take in $1.2 trillion in income tax. In other words, he wants to cut 2/3 of the budget. I'm all for balancing the budget, including making some tough cuts, but that's just insane.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I majored in Linguistics, and I am a stickler concerning English grammar, but only when the rule makes sense. If it's an established rule that is unnecessary or doesn't make sense, I don't mind ignoring it. Specifically in this case, I prefer the French way of doing it because it sounds better, and the traditional use of the subjunctive is unnecessary.
And don't you mean "unrevoltingitude"?
So yer a Frenchie at heart, eh?
Figgers.
"Unrevoltingitude" isn't a real word.....yet.
Figgers.
"Unrevoltingitude" isn't a real word.....yet.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
In some ways, yes. I'd say I'm more of a Scottie at heart, though, and a Frenchie second.
work in progress
Well-Known Member
As soon as George Bush started expanding on the Clinton "faith-based" initiatives, it became clear that the church leaders are neoliberals because they want to be in charge of the social safety net...just like in the old days when they wielded the power of life and death over parishoners in destitute circumstances, such as 19th century Ireland. A big part of the reason for the decline of church power and falloff in attendance is directly because, in most of the West, church attendance and adherence is optional, and cannot be coerced. And that is why they want to turn the clock back to what they consider to be the "good old days!"
work in progress
Well-Known Member
And this is why the majority of Americans seem to be getting sick of the good cop/bad cop game played by Republicans and Democrats! On the core economic issues, there is hardly a stone's throw of distance between the two. They both have no policies to deal with costly environmental problems that are mounting right now, and they both fall in line on neoliberal economic policy....Obama's free trade deals with South Korea, Panama etc.. A lot of people want another choice that isn't dependent on corporate funding.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
My honest answer is I believe there is better than Obama. I'm iffy about him. He has flopped around on many issues, took longer than I was hoping for to bring the troops back home, but DADT was repealled, DOMA is on the chopping block, and me and many of my friends have gotten medical treatment because of the health care bill.
But from the GOP I couldn't live with myself voting for a party who wants to repeal acts that have cleaned up the environment, some of them are strongly anti-worker (such as the ones that want to do away with minimum wage laws), and all the main contenders have signed NOM's marriage pledge.
The way I see it, it isn't the lesser of two evils, it's keeping out the people who use religion in it's most corrupt form.