Wow! It Didn't Take Long for the Republicans to Break That Promise

Speaking of twisting! Don't you find it sort of curious that the Right-wingers think ALL networks are liberal outlets yet only Fox tells the truth? Don't you find it a little funny that many of the top Republican potential presidential candidates already work for Fox? Don't you find it interesting that of all the other networks out there, none of them have potential Democrat presidential candidates on their payroll?

You insinuate that you are against opinions that are twisted to somebody's liking but ignore the ones that are twisted to your own liking. And man are they ever twisted.

If want to pick on my educational level, you might want to learn the proper way to write the plural of the word "somebody" if you don't want to sound like an uneducated idiot. When you're anti-intellectual you're simply aligning yourself with the other idiots out there.

 

FOX isn't the only one who tells the truth. Occasionally MSNBC gets it right, but not often. Actually, I watch more of MSNBC than I do FOX.

I would ask that you define the term "many". Anyway, let's see who is running. The leading potential candidates as it stands now are:

Sarah Palin
Mitt Romney
Mike Huckabee
David Patraeus
Rudy Giuliani
Newt Gingrich
Bobby Jindal
Jeb Bush
Charlie Crist
Lindsey Graham

Of those ten people, only two are employed by FOX. That's not "many" in my book, but probably too many for you. So one is an analyst on FOX News and the other hosts a talk show, why should it amount to a hill of beans? After all, I wouldn't mind if Keith Olbermann or Ed Schultz ran for president.. I REALLY wouldn't...

 

I said, "many of the top Republican potential presidental candidates". The obvious possible presidential candidates for many Republicans in 2012 have been Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney. They received the highest amount of votes on the Gallup Poll of the politicians Republicans would most like to see make a run. Any Fox News employees among them? Now please point out all the top Democrats at MSNBC that are potentially running for president in 2012. The fact that you can't should tell you something and yet....

 

When you say "top Republican potential presidential candidates", you may want to define that a little better. If you define it as the top two, then 50% of the candidates are FOX employees. If you define it as the top three, then it's 66%. If you define it as the top ten, then it's 20%. I was just asking for a little clarification from you.

 

The key to that is "you say". In case you have not figured it out yet, he defines the truth and does not let the facts get in the way.

 

I listen to the other side. I just don't happen to agree with most all of it. You refuse to even listen to it because it does not fit your needs. "I don't listen to anyone on the Right." You are so well educated that you are ignorant of the facts.

There are none so blind as he who refuses to see.

BTW, from American Heritage® Dictionary

 

What is the proper way to write the plural of the word "somebody"? Just askin'....

 

Thats easy. ''Somebody-esk.''. Isnt that your educational level, Moen? Lighten up man

 

Now THAT is funny!

 

All Fox regulars for sure.

 

Say what? So, the Dem (or should that be "Dim"?) politicians who appear on MSNBC all the time aren't "MSNBC regulars"? You must be intoxicated.

 

Never said that. You did. All I know is that if I want to catch up on the latest RNC propaganda, I COULD tune to Fox and catch most of the folks on that list spouting "Fox alerts" with headlines like "Democrats and liberals hate women, babies, and God", followed by one or more of those peabrains spewing hot air.

 

Now, that was a good one!

 

I usually refrain from pointing out bad grammar mostly because it is usually irrelevant to the point of the thread and there is just so damn much of it. In this instance, I gave into the angels of my darker nature when you took another shot at my educational level in addition to your always hilarious signature line jab. I'm just glad you think so much of me that you feel I am quote worthy. It's kind of flattering in a perverse way.

Anyway, to put down the final word on this grammar issue, the way you used the plural form of the word "somebody" made it a possessive adjective which is written with the apostrophe and then the letter "s" not the simple plural form which drops the "y" and adds "ies". I know that you are not the only one guilty of this mistake. It is common error I see regularly every semester. Here is the proper definition. You should probably thank me because there is certainly little chance you'll make this mistake again now that you know the proper use of the possessive adjective. You're Welcome!

English Grammar

Unlike most of the personal pronouns, the indefinite pronouns have the same form in the objective case as in the subjective case. As shown in the following table, the indefinite pronouns which refer to persons form possessive adjectives by adding 's.

Indefinite Pronoun/Possessive Adjective
one = one's
anyone = anyone's
everyone = everyone's
no one = no one's
someone = someone's
anybody = anybody's
everybody = everybody's
nobody = nobody's
somebody = somebody's

 

OK, Mr. educated;

It was not written as a possessive, and you are not (see above) and originally did not read it as a possessive,

It was written as a plural and the sited reference for the plural of somebody is somebodies. Where I when to school, the possessive of such a word would be somebodies'. I did not write that because that is not what I was saying.

I meant it to say you believe the opinion of more than one person (note: that it is not possessive) and also the opinion of the opinion of more than one person.

 

You need to pay closer attention to what you read. I believe you meant to address rlmcents on this issue, not me. I think an apology is in order.


Now, as far as your definition is concerned, you are correct. However, I don't believe the use of the word "somebodies" as used in the sentence by rlmcents fits your definition hence the reason I was asking for your definition.


Rlmcents said, "You believe all the liberal opinions somebodies twist into your liking..." and I interpreted the word to have this meaning (not as a possessive adjective):


somebody [ˈsʌmbədɪ]pron some person; someone

n pl -bodies a person of greater importance than others; he is somebody in this townUsage: See at everyone


Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

 

Why does it take you so long to get somewhere? ''Angels of my darker nature''. Not too prententious.

 

The way you wrote the sentence, "You believe all the liberal opinions somebodies twist into your liking...." it is possessive. I don't think you meant to omit the -ed after the word twist but that is what you wrote and I read it literally. What you were trying to write was a contraction for "somebody has" which isn't possessive but is commonly contracted to the word somebody's. What you actually wrote was indeed possessive.

Don't believe me, paste it into a word document and see if it earns a red underline.

 

When I figure out what "prententious" means, I'll let you know.

 

For heaven's sake! How many times do I have to tell you that I did not write that!?!?! Please read the posts to make certain you're quoting the correct author before you respond!