during my recent visit to baton rouge my mom gave me a lecture on the word origins of the word nitwit. the origin is german, nicht, meaning not, or in this case no-wit, having no wits. the reason my mom thought of nitwits is that my dad was talking about the black people in the superdome, and was about to call em the n-bomb, but changed the word midway through to nitwits in order not to offend my mom.
I have not made ONE SINGLE POST here advocating "peace". Do a search, you are making it up. Anybody who disagrees with you must be painted with a "peacenik" brush. I've never advocated peace, In fact I have advocated more military action. What I am against are STUPID WARS led by incompetent politicians that hurt America instead of advancing it. I've already proved that this is untrue. Move along. Well the friendly debate didn't last long, did it? It is also obvious what you are, so what is your point? Also, I've NEVER called myself nonpolitical, you made that up too. What I am is non-partisan. I have little use for either party because they have become too polarized and have abandoned the middle. I don't defend Clinton because he's a democrat, I defend him because you ignore the facts and make assumptions not based on reality. You have no idea what I might say IF some mythical scenario played out. Quit making up what I think and address what I actually say. You made that up, too. I challenge you to document that "most democrats called GHW Bush a coward after Kuwait". You can't do it. That war was NOT a stupid war and was backed by "most democrats" who also contributed to Bush's extremely high approval ratings after the war. The problem with the radical right, is that they think the "enemy" is the rest of America that doesn't go along with their foolish policies. The enemy is not among the citizens of the US and anybody who believes this is counterproductive to the real war against the real enemies. The radical right is divisive, which will be their ultimate undoing. The future belongs to the moderates, not to radical leftists like Kerry or radical rightists like Rumsfeld. Suit yourself.
Did you forget that Nixon presided over more years of Vietnam than Johnson did? Also, anyone who was there at the time knows that it wasn't "hippies" that that were against the war. It was a broad-based disssent that included every facet of American society. To quote you, "Read the Book". There are two highly acclaimed books on the Vietnam War that are essential for any amateur historian. The Vietnam War: A History by Stanley Karnow and About Face by Col. David Hackworth. It was an unwinnable war, as guerrilla wars often are. And the opposition to Vietnam was much broader than the sterotyped college peace protesters of the movies. Average citizens were opposed to this war. By 1968 almost everybody knew the war was a disaster and we had to get out of it. Yet it went on four more years, while politicians defended their failed policies. Eventually both Nixon and McNamara admitted their mistakes. Lyndon Johnson never did, although the dropping of his reelection bid in 1968 may have been accepting tacit responsibility.
par·ti·san1 (pär'tĭ-zən) pronunciation n. 1. A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea. you are a fervent partisan. just because you claim your cause is moderation doesnt make any any less married to or fervent about your position. if you think a position is moderate, you take it, almost as if your opnions are dictated to you by public perception of what is the middle. i hope not.
Johnson got us in there, never called it a war, never declared war, got us in so deep that no one could have fixed it by the time Nixon got in office. Nixon got us out. Bottom line.
Silly rabbit, that is the definition of the noun. The adjective definition is what applies to my statement. adj. Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: partisan politics. I'm not a democrat or a republican nor a member of any political party. Therefore my position is non-partisan. Fervency has no relationship with partisan positions. I can easily be fervent about a non-partisan issue. By any definition. My perceptions are my own, obviously. Live with it. Your inability to comprehend that a middle exists is not my problem. You spend way too much time attemping to tell me what I think, a subject in which you have no expertise. Why not just stick to telling us what you think?
i am telling you what i think, i think you are a partisan who sometimes blindly sticks to the cause of moderation. the definition you listed says "group or cause" as well as party. how did you miss that? your group is moderates, your cause is moderation. (i am not sure if i approve of this practice of adding bold to other peep's quotes, but i did it anyways.)
Not finding and not having are two entirely different things. To use an LSU analogy, we couldn't find our defense in the first 2 games, but it was definitely there the whole time. :hihi:
Interesting. I always thought it implied that one's wits were actually created out of knitted material. Like their brain was knitted or crocheted (sp?) from yarn. I always thought that it was odd, but could reason how one would be offended by it if they were a big pussy. Also, about your comments regarding the usage of 'sir.' A friend of mine returned from NYC on Saturday morning. On the way to the game that afternoon, he was telling us how one of the trends in New York right now is that addressing someone with 'sir' or 'ma'am' was frowned upon. He could only suppose that it is somehow linked to an image of subservience. What's with that?
i have hears of old ladies who have knitting groups called the knitwits. but the regular word is without a k. "sir" is a southern thing. i never hear it. i dunno about some sort of trend, but i agree with killing these sort of subservient terms.
