Jump to content

What a great event


PastaJoe

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 266
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes he should have...John Roberts that is.

Did you see he had to do it AGAIN today? Pretty funny - Roberts flubs the oath and has to do it again in the White House just in case a wingnut wants to question that Obama REALLY took the oath.

 

So the Bush admin incompetency is not QUITE behind us.

 

Robert is, however, a Bills fan. Therefore I will forgive him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you see he had to do it AGAIN today? Pretty funny - Roberts flubs the oath and has to do it again in the White House just in case a wingnut wants to question that Obama REALLY took the oath.

 

So the Bush admin incompetency is not QUITE behind us.

 

Robert is, however, a Bills fan. Therefore I will forgive him.

Yeah, blame Roberts (Bush). The Messiah could have said the right words, regardless. Of course it's turbo taxes fault that Geitner forgot to mail in 34K in taxes owed. I love how every stupid thing a dummycrat does is someone elses fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, blame Roberts (Bush). The Messiah could have said the right words, regardless. Of course it's turbo taxes fault that Geitner forgot to mail in 34K in taxes owed. I love how every stupid thing a dummycrat does is someone elses fault.

Roberts = teleprompter

 

crap in....crap out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you see he had to do it AGAIN today? Pretty funny - Roberts flubs the oath and has to do it again in the White House just in case a wingnut wants to question that Obama REALLY took the oath.

 

So the Bush admin incompetency is not QUITE behind us.

 

Robert is, however, a Bills fan. Therefore I will forgive him.

Great Op-Ed in the NYT today by Harvard Psych prof and Heritage Dictionary usage panel Chair, Steven Pinker, regarding Justice Roberts' flub and his predilection to split verbs.

Language pedants hew to an oral tradition of shibboleths that have no basis in logic or style, that have been defied by great writers for centuries, and that have been disavowed by every thoughtful usage manual. Nonetheless, they refuse to go away, perpetuated by the Gotcha! Gang and meekly obeyed by insecure writers.

 

Among these fetishes is the prohibition against “split verbs,” in which an adverb comes between an infinitive marker like “to,” or an auxiliary like “will,” and the main verb of the sentence.

 

snip

 

Though the ungrammaticality of split verbs is an urban legend, it found its way into The Texas Law Review Manual on Style, which is the arbiter of usage for many law review journals. James Lindgren, a critic of the manual, has found that many lawyers have “internalized the bogus rule so that they actually believe that a split verb should be avoided,” adding, “The Invasion of the Body Snatchers has succeeded so well that many can no longer distinguish alien speech from native speech.”

 

In his legal opinions, Chief Justice Roberts has altered quotations to conform to his notions of grammaticality, as when he excised the “ain’t” from Bob Dylan’s line “When you ain’t got nothing, you got nothing to lose.” On Tuesday his inner copy editor overrode any instincts toward strict constructionism and unilaterally amended the Constitution by moving the adverb “faithfully” away from the verb.

 

President Obama, whose attention to language is obvious in his speeches and writings, smiled at the chief justice’s hypercorrection, then gamely repeated it. Let’s hope that during the next four years he will always challenge dogma and boldly lead the nation in new directions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...