Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, my deluded little libtard Bolshevik, the Constitution sitting under about 20 feet of raw sewage right now. We're not going to save from you people at the ballot box as long as you have a stranglehold on the nation's media. In order to free the press and redeem the Constitution, it is necessary to break a few eggs.Let's see. I know that whether a candidate ever called a Miss Universe "fat" deserves 12 stories in the Washington Post, and whether a multi-billionaire with dual citizenship who has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in an enormous effort to achieve the unprecedented and radical and dangerous step of eliminating the nation's borders is a candidate's primary donor to the tune of $25 million dollars deserves 0 stories in the Washington Post. Did I pass, pussy?Trump supporters do not know what makes up a democracy
Nope.
Frankly you failed from the OP when you advocated for pissing on the Constitution of the United States.
Which means they have no fidelity to the country. It is only a tool for some other end. They are so rabid to maintain their grip on power while they pursue their agenda that they are willing to deny the voters their right to participate meaningfully in our self-rule. They would destroy it and disenfranchise 200 million people rather than give up one iota of their power.Donald Trump was elected by the people of the United States to a four year term. He is the person we chose to execute the laws of our Republic. We chose him according to the method as provided in our Constitution--the supreme law of the land. You Trump-haters have opposed him from his first day in office--not his policies, but him. You have attacked him like a pack of vicious dogs every minute of every day of his administration--not his policies, but him. In other words, you have spent every day since he took office attacking our democracy itself.
You seek to bring him down. That means you seek to overturn the election. That means you seek to bring down our system of government. That means you and your thug allies think you should replace the democratic will of the people as the supreme power in this land. That means you seek to overturn the Constitution; you seek to subvert the rule of law. That means you are dangerous traitors.
Consider this from today's Washington Post: Sessions discussed Trump campaign with Russian ambassador, per intel intercepts. Do you know what that is? That is a big fat nothing. So what if Sessions discussed the campaign with the Russian ambassador. So fucking what? Jeff Sessions could have made it his mission to discuss the campaign with every leader on earth plus Satan every single day from Iowa through November 8 and no laws would have been broken.
Trump should have federal agents raid the Washington Post on Monday morning and have every person there arrested on charges of treason. He should keep them in jail until the end of his term.
When Trump won they all the sudden turned out to be anti-democratic. Democracy is only nice if it works for them it seems.
You Tribesters disemboweled our Republic and the Constitution on which it rests when you enslaved our press to your ends, when you used your power to perpetrate the invasion of a sovereign country that was no threat to us, and you committed treason when you subordinated our sovereignty, our treasure, and our lives to a belligerent bloodthirsty enemy on the other side of the world.Donald Trump was elected by the people of the United States to a four year term. He is the person we chose to execute the laws of our Republic. We chose him according to the method as provided in our Constitution--the supreme law of the land. You Trump-haters have opposed him from his first day in office--not his policies, but him. You have attacked him like a pack of vicious dogs every minute of every day of his administration--not his policies, but him. In other words, you have spent every day since he took office attacking our democracy itself.
You seek to bring him down. That means you seek to overturn the election. That means you seek to bring down our system of government. That means you and your thug allies think you should replace the democratic will of the people as the supreme power in this land. That means you seek to overturn the Constitution; you seek to subvert the rule of law. That means you are dangerous traitors.
Consider this from today's Washington Post: Sessions discussed Trump campaign with Russian ambassador, per intel intercepts. Do you know what that is? That is a big fat nothing. So what if Sessions discussed the campaign with the Russian ambassador. So fucking what? Jeff Sessions could have made it his mission to discuss the campaign with every leader on earth plus Satan every single day from Iowa through November 8 and no laws would have been broken.
Trump should have federal agents raid the Washington Post on Monday morning and have every person there arrested on charges of treason. He should keep them in jail until the end of his term.
When Trump won they all the sudden turned out to be anti-democratic. Democracy is only nice if it works for them it seems.
When Trump won you Trumpsters seem to have forgotten about the Constitution. To you the Constitution is only applicable when it protects Trump.
Let it drop, dipshit. You are embarrassing yourself. I live here. It is not "the bad part" of DC.Why are libtards such liars? It was not a robbery attempt. It was a few blocks from where I live--not "the" bad part of DC.Killing people for political reasons? You mean like Seth Rich?Trump won and he is doing an excellent job. We have obstructionist democrats and a lying media unwilling to report what a good job he is doing.
Thankfully, the media is starting to die.
Wall Street Journal Editorial Writer Is Found Dead
NBC Washington anchor Jim Vance dies at 75
They just need to do it faster.
Wow you should move to Russia where people are more accepting to killing people just because they disagree with your political opinions. Here in the U.S. however it is considered classless.
Every time I see a retard on this forum bring him up, all I can hear in my ears is the same repubs complaining about the Russian investigation and how much of a waste it is... Seth Rich got shot in Washington D.C. Surprised? A white preppy guy walking in the bad part of Washington D.C. super late at night by himself got shot in a robbery attempt? Wow... what are the odds of that??? Man... no way...
Wrong. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?
It's becoming a popular area for people to move into, but the crime rates have actually increased there.
No. Against anyone who'd in their mind, no matter what they may say publicly, hold it against me that I copied "out of the box" with hyphens. I make enough mistakes on my own. I don't need to add yours or anyone else's to them.Against me?a preemptive defense
Well, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but there is a sizable splinter group of RWNJs I've been unable to restrain who have decided to hold those hyphens against you. Sorry.No. Against anyone who'd in their mind, no matter what they may say publicly, hold it against me that I copied "out of the box" with hyphens. I make enough mistakes on my own. I don't need to add yours or anyone else's to them.Against me?a preemptive defense
I just checked to see what sorts of replies your inquiry is receiving. I noticed you left of a key point: "out of the box" is already a member of English's lexicon of idioms. It's not a new saying or phrase you've invented.OK, cowboy, now you've gone too far. Nobody impugns my modifiers with impunity. Ten paces.Sure they do: An early meeting.Adjectives don't provide the when aspect of meaning.
In the sentence, "Let's have an early meeting tomorrow." do you claim the word "early" is not an adjective? that it has the same function as the word "early" in this sentence, "They decided early in the meeting."
I don't know what "they" say about that particular sentence. Are the authors/editors of the site I linked in the above quoted post they" to whom you refer? If so, is that sentence on their site?
"Early" can function as either an adjective or an adverb. It has a slightly different meaning in each case, and, of course, it modifies a different part of speech in each case.
In post 321, I wrote:
That remark was my way of alluding to an important distinction between written and spoke communication. When we speak with others, there is almost always context that is understood by the parties to a discussion. Among other things, that context allows listeners to know whether one means, for example, early as an adjective or as an adverb, regardless of the speaker's construction. In writing, context plays the same role; however, writers must establish that context at or near their earliest opportunity because readers can't instantaneously make and confirm their denotational conclusions they draw from the written word. Readers can only apply the standard denotations and rules of grammar construe accordingly what they read.Regardless of how one chooses to interpret it, all the ways one might reasonably construe the sentence amount to essentially the same things.
Sometimes, it doesn't matter much whether there is a slight misinterpretation or usage of a word or phrase. For instance, if one's boss says, "Let's have an early meeting tomorrow," barring something preventing one from doing so, whether one's bose meant "early relative to the typical meeting time" or "early in the morning, perhaps because the meeting is being coordinated right there on the fly" is of little or no importance. The natural response to that exhortation is, "Okay. What time?" The answer to that question provides the contextual one needs to know (1) at what time to appear for the meeting, and (2) whether the meeting is indeed earlier than normal or merely early in the morning, or both.
Another important difference between written and spoke communication is that some people will say somewhat vague and/or ambiguous things as a means of putting out feelers. I believe they do so because they think the tentativeness/weakness intrinsic to ambiguous/vague statements/inquiries is polite or something. (I realize that whether it is or not is out of scope here.) Whatever the reason, when people converse in person, their elocutionary uncertainty doesn't cause much of a comprehension problem. In writing and one-way speech, it does; moreover, it infuses inefficiency into their discourse with others.
To wit, in writing, I'd write "Let's meet tomorrow morning at seven o'clock." If I were asking if doing so is amenable to the other party, I'd put a question mark at the end of the sentence. If it's an instruction, I end it with a period, whereafter the only things I expect to read in reply are either (1) "okay," or (2) "I can't. Will 'such and such' a time work?" Were I having a face-to-face chat with the other party(s), I might very well say, "Let's have an early meeting tomorrow." (I'd still, as befits my intent, put a period or question mark at the end of or in the middle of the sentence.)
Having gone down this road of discussing adjectives and adverbs, why are we discussing it? I realize the high-level reason accrues from the "[sic]"/hyphenation thing. What I don't understand is why we are talking about parts of speech when my core reason for using "[sic]" is that "out of the box" is an accepted idiom having meaning, precisely the one you intend, rather than a user-constructed phrase. Whether the phrase is intended/though to be an adjectival or adverbial phrase has nothing to do with whether it needs to be hyphenated; the fact that it's an accepted idiom is what determines that.
FWIW, there is one situation wherein hyphenating "out of the box" is correct. That instance is when the very next word is a noun. The reason for that rule is that adjectives (and adjectival phrases), unlike adverbs precede the word they modify, whereas adverbs (and adverbial phrases) can be correctly placed before and after the words they modify. Thus by writing, say, "out-of-the-box attempt," the writer informs the reader that the idiom modifies "attempt." That's not the construction you used; you put "naked" between "out of the box" and "attempt," thereby making the hyphenation a grammatical/spelling mistake.
.
When Trump won they all the sudden turned out to be anti-democratic. Democracy is only nice if it works for them it seems.[/QUOTE]You Tribesters .Donald Trump was elected by the people of the United States to a four year term. He is the person we chose to execute the laws of our Republic. We chose him according to the method as provided in our Constitution--the supreme law of the land. You Trump-haters have opposed him from his first day in office--not his policies, but him. You have attacked him like a pack of vicious dogs every minute of every day of his administration--not his policies, but him. In other words, you have spent every day since he took office attacking our democracy itself.
You seek to bring him down. That means you seek to overturn the election. That means you seek to bring down our system of government. That means you and your thug allies think you should replace the democratic will of the people as the supreme power in this land. That means you seek to overturn the Constitution; you seek to subvert the rule of law. That means you are dangerous traitors.
Consider this from today's Washington Post: Sessions discussed Trump campaign with Russian ambassador, per intel intercepts. Do you know what that is? That is a big fat nothing. So what if Sessions discussed the campaign with the Russian ambassador. So fucking what? Jeff Sessions could have made it his mission to discuss the campaign with every leader on earth plus Satan every single day from Iowa through November 8 and no laws would have been broken.
Trump should have federal agents raid the Washington Post on Monday morning and have every person there arrested on charges of treason. He should keep them in jail until the end of his term.
When Trump won they all the sudden turned out to be anti-democratic. Democracy is only nice if it works for them it seems.
When Trump won you Trumpsters seem to have forgotten about the Constitution. To you the Constitution is only applicable when it protects Trump.
Which means they have no fidelity to the country.Donald Trump was elected by the people of the United States to a four year term. He is the person we chose to execute the laws of our Republic. We chose him according to the method as provided in our Constitution--the supreme law of the land. You Trump-haters have opposed him from his first day in office--not his policies, but him. You have attacked him like a pack of vicious dogs every minute of every day of his administration--not his policies, but him. In other words, you have spent every day since he took office attacking our democracy itself.
You seek to bring him down. That means you seek to overturn the election. That means you seek to bring down our system of government. That means you and your thug allies think you should replace the democratic will of the people as the supreme power in this land. That means you seek to overturn the Constitution; you seek to subvert the rule of law. That means you are dangerous traitors.
Consider this from today's Washington Post: Sessions discussed Trump campaign with Russian ambassador, per intel intercepts. Do you know what that is? That is a big fat nothing. So what if Sessions discussed the campaign with the Russian ambassador. So fucking what? Jeff Sessions could have made it his mission to discuss the campaign with every leader on earth plus Satan every single day from Iowa through November 8 and no laws would have been broken.
Trump should have federal agents raid the Washington Post on Monday morning and have every person there arrested on charges of treason. He should keep them in jail until the end of his term.
When Trump won they all the sudden turned out to be anti-democratic. Democracy is only nice if it works for them it seems.
This is my first time interacting with Stack exchange. It appears that it's a popular opinion sort of place. I had hoped it was something more authoritative, perhaps a "Strunk and White" of the Internet. (I'm well aware that S&W are silent on this particular matter.) I seems a good reference place for standard stuff, but less so for esoterica, which is about what anything having to do with hyphenation is.I just checked to see what sorts of replies your inquiry is receiving. I noticed you left of a key point: "out of the box" is already a member of English's lexicon of idioms. It's not a new saying or phrase you've invented.OK, cowboy, now you've gone too far. Nobody impugns my modifiers with impunity. Ten paces.Sure they do: An early meeting.
In the sentence, "Let's have an early meeting tomorrow." do you claim the word "early" is not an adjective? that it has the same function as the word "early" in this sentence, "They decided early in the meeting."
I don't know what "they" say about that particular sentence. Are the authors/editors of the site I linked in the above quoted post they" to whom you refer? If so, is that sentence on their site?
"Early" can function as either an adjective or an adverb. It has a slightly different meaning in each case, and, of course, it modifies a different part of speech in each case.
In post 321, I wrote:
That remark was my way of alluding to an important distinction between written and spoke communication. When we speak with others, there is almost always context that is understood by the parties to a discussion. Among other things, that context allows listeners to know whether one means, for example, early as an adjective or as an adverb, regardless of the speaker's construction. In writing, context plays the same role; however, writers must establish that context at or near their earliest opportunity because readers can't instantaneously make and confirm their denotational conclusions they draw from the written word. Readers can only apply the standard denotations and rules of grammar construe accordingly what they read.Regardless of how one chooses to interpret it, all the ways one might reasonably construe the sentence amount to essentially the same things.
Sometimes, it doesn't matter much whether there is a slight misinterpretation or usage of a word or phrase. For instance, if one's boss says, "Let's have an early meeting tomorrow," barring something preventing one from doing so, whether one's bose meant "early relative to the typical meeting time" or "early in the morning, perhaps because the meeting is being coordinated right there on the fly" is of little or no importance. The natural response to that exhortation is, "Okay. What time?" The answer to that question provides the contextual one needs to know (1) at what time to appear for the meeting, and (2) whether the meeting is indeed earlier than normal or merely early in the morning, or both.
Another important difference between written and spoke communication is that some people will say somewhat vague and/or ambiguous things as a means of putting out feelers. I believe they do so because they think the tentativeness/weakness intrinsic to ambiguous/vague statements/inquiries is polite or something. (I realize that whether it is or not is out of scope here.) Whatever the reason, when people converse in person, their elocutionary uncertainty doesn't cause much of a comprehension problem. In writing and one-way speech, it does; moreover, it infuses inefficiency into their discourse with others.
To wit, in writing, I'd write "Let's meet tomorrow morning at seven o'clock." If I were asking if doing so is amenable to the other party, I'd put a question mark at the end of the sentence. If it's an instruction, I end it with a period, whereafter the only things I expect to read in reply are either (1) "okay," or (2) "I can't. Will 'such and such' a time work?" Were I having a face-to-face chat with the other party(s), I might very well say, "Let's have an early meeting tomorrow." (I'd still, as befits my intent, put a period or question mark at the end of or in the middle of the sentence.)
Having gone down this road of discussing adjectives and adverbs, why are we discussing it? I realize the high-level reason accrues from the "[sic]"/hyphenation thing. What I don't understand is why we are talking about parts of speech when my core reason for using "[sic]" is that "out of the box" is an accepted idiom having meaning, precisely the one you intend, rather than a user-constructed phrase. Whether the phrase is intended/though to be an adjectival or adverbial phrase has nothing to do with whether it needs to be hyphenated; the fact that it's an accepted idiom is what determines that.
FWIW, there is one situation wherein hyphenating "out of the box" is correct. That instance is when the very next word is a noun. The reason for that rule is that adjectives (and adjectival phrases), unlike adverbs precede the word they modify, whereas adverbs (and adverbial phrases) can be correctly placed before and after the words they modify. Thus by writing, say, "out-of-the-box attempt," the writer informs the reader that the idiom modifies "attempt." That's not the construction you used; you put "naked" between "out of the box" and "attempt," thereby making the hyphenation a grammatical/spelling mistake.
.
Donald Trump was elected by the people of the United States to a four year term. He is the person we chose to execute the laws of our Republic. We chose him according to the method as provided in our Constitution--the supreme law of the land. You Trump-haters have opposed him from his first day in office--not his policies, but him. You have attacked him like a pack of vicious dogs every minute of every day of his administration--not his policies, but him. In other words, you have spent every day since he took office attacking our democracy itself.
You seek to bring him down. That means you seek to overturn the election. That means you seek to bring down our system of government. That means you and your thug allies think you should replace the democratic will of the people as the supreme power in this land. That means you seek to overturn the Constitution; you seek to subvert the rule of law. That means you are dangerous traitors.
Consider this from today's Washington Post: Sessions discussed Trump campaign with Russian ambassador, per intel intercepts. Do you know what that is? That is a big fat nothing. So what if Sessions discussed the campaign with the Russian ambassador. So fucking what? Jeff Sessions could have made it his mission to discuss the campaign with every leader on earth plus Satan every single day from Iowa through November 8 and no laws would have been broken.
Trump should have federal agents raid the Washington Post on Monday morning and have every person there arrested on charges of treason. He should keep them in jail until the end of his term.
You provide the argument of why you are wrong within your own statement. Your bigotry against white people makes you see the Alt-right, nativists, etc all as the same people, which is to say, white people. And just as you were wildly off on what you expected to happen on Nov 8, you are wildly off about this, too, as are the polls you foolishly believe.The Alt Right anti-semites, anti democracy, nativists, nationalists, ethnocentrist, etc., cannot save Trump.
When he is constitutionally removed from office, his supporters better all stand down. The LEO and the military will crush them if necessary.
LOL, I knew you would be unable to resist posting there. They give points for verbosity, so you'll do very well.This is my first time interacting with Stack exchange. It appears that it's a popular opinion sort of place. I had hoped it was something more authoritative, perhaps a "Strunk and White" of the Internet. (I'm well aware that S&W are silent on this particular matter.) I seems a good reference place for standard stuff, but less so for esoterica, which is about what anything having to do with hyphenation is.I just checked to see what sorts of replies your inquiry is receiving. I noticed you left of a key point: "out of the box" is already a member of English's lexicon of idioms. It's not a new saying or phrase you've invented.OK, cowboy, now you've gone too far. Nobody impugns my modifiers with impunity. Ten paces.
In the sentence, "Let's have an early meeting tomorrow." do you claim the word "early" is not an adjective? that it has the same function as the word "early" in this sentence, "They decided early in the meeting."
I don't know what "they" say about that particular sentence. Are the authors/editors of the site I linked in the above quoted post they" to whom you refer? If so, is that sentence on their site?
"Early" can function as either an adjective or an adverb. It has a slightly different meaning in each case, and, of course, it modifies a different part of speech in each case.
In post 321, I wrote:
That remark was my way of alluding to an important distinction between written and spoke communication. When we speak with others, there is almost always context that is understood by the parties to a discussion. Among other things, that context allows listeners to know whether one means, for example, early as an adjective or as an adverb, regardless of the speaker's construction. In writing, context plays the same role; however, writers must establish that context at or near their earliest opportunity because readers can't instantaneously make and confirm their denotational conclusions they draw from the written word. Readers can only apply the standard denotations and rules of grammar construe accordingly what they read.Regardless of how one chooses to interpret it, all the ways one might reasonably construe the sentence amount to essentially the same things.
Sometimes, it doesn't matter much whether there is a slight misinterpretation or usage of a word or phrase. For instance, if one's boss says, "Let's have an early meeting tomorrow," barring something preventing one from doing so, whether one's bose meant "early relative to the typical meeting time" or "early in the morning, perhaps because the meeting is being coordinated right there on the fly" is of little or no importance. The natural response to that exhortation is, "Okay. What time?" The answer to that question provides the contextual one needs to know (1) at what time to appear for the meeting, and (2) whether the meeting is indeed earlier than normal or merely early in the morning, or both.
Another important difference between written and spoke communication is that some people will say somewhat vague and/or ambiguous things as a means of putting out feelers. I believe they do so because they think the tentativeness/weakness intrinsic to ambiguous/vague statements/inquiries is polite or something. (I realize that whether it is or not is out of scope here.) Whatever the reason, when people converse in person, their elocutionary uncertainty doesn't cause much of a comprehension problem. In writing and one-way speech, it does; moreover, it infuses inefficiency into their discourse with others.
To wit, in writing, I'd write "Let's meet tomorrow morning at seven o'clock." If I were asking if doing so is amenable to the other party, I'd put a question mark at the end of the sentence. If it's an instruction, I end it with a period, whereafter the only things I expect to read in reply are either (1) "okay," or (2) "I can't. Will 'such and such' a time work?" Were I having a face-to-face chat with the other party(s), I might very well say, "Let's have an early meeting tomorrow." (I'd still, as befits my intent, put a period or question mark at the end of or in the middle of the sentence.)
Having gone down this road of discussing adjectives and adverbs, why are we discussing it? I realize the high-level reason accrues from the "[sic]"/hyphenation thing. What I don't understand is why we are talking about parts of speech when my core reason for using "[sic]" is that "out of the box" is an accepted idiom having meaning, precisely the one you intend, rather than a user-constructed phrase. Whether the phrase is intended/though to be an adjectival or adverbial phrase has nothing to do with whether it needs to be hyphenated; the fact that it's an accepted idiom is what determines that.
FWIW, there is one situation wherein hyphenating "out of the box" is correct. That instance is when the very next word is a noun. The reason for that rule is that adjectives (and adjectival phrases), unlike adverbs precede the word they modify, whereas adverbs (and adverbial phrases) can be correctly placed before and after the words they modify. Thus by writing, say, "out-of-the-box attempt," the writer informs the reader that the idiom modifies "attempt." That's not the construction you used; you put "naked" between "out of the box" and "attempt," thereby making the hyphenation a grammatical/spelling mistake.
.
You and your ilk were vowing to bring him down before he even took office. That means you were vowing to take down our system of government, and you've done everything to keep your word. That makes you traitors. You will be dealt with as such.Trump's criminal intransigence, not Clinton, is the OP here, Clementine.
If Trump had governed from the beginning as a normally elected president, we could yell but move ahead with him.
He does not, we cannot.
He operates as a gangster, as a mafiosi, without any sense of restraint.
He will be restrained constitutionally until he leaves office. Those who break the law on his behalf will also be restrained constitutionally.
