Democratic Nomination?

Originally posted by BigRed
History dictates that Ron Paul and other people that advocate non-interventionism are right. History allows us to look back and realize a failed foreign policy. And by looking at the last near century of our foreign policy of interventionism, we realize it isn't working and has caused a shitload of problems.

You can be a world player without being a "player" if you know what I mean.

Sure, I know what you mean. But just because we refuse to play the game, doesn't mean it isn't still taking place. The symantics of actual history aside, nations no longer exist as islands unto themselves. It is a fair position to claim that we don't need to involve ourselves with the business of other nations, but that doesn't mean they will stop intervening in ours.

As I said in the beginning, he's a member of my top 5. Well, since there are only 5 people left, he's made it this far. I hve always said that his message is logical, but unrealistic.

Originally posted by Devil King
Sure, I know what you mean. But just because we refuse to play the game, doesn't mean it isn't still taking place. The symantics of actual history aside, nations no longer exist as islands unto themselves. It is a fair position to claim that we don't need to involve ourselves with the business of other nations, but that doesn't mean they will stop intervening in ours.

As I said in the beginning, he's a member of my top 5. Well, since there are only 5 people left, he's made it this far. I hve always said that his message is logical, but unrealistic.

Since that time, we've intervened in countless countries affairs.

Originally posted by BigRed
What country has intervened in ours over the last five or so decades? The last country to intervene was Japan during Pearl Harbor in 1941.

Since that time, we've intervened in countless countries affairs.

So, intervention is limited to outright attacking us? I didn't know that.

Originally posted by lord xyz
You could read that?

I must be a genius.

Originally posted by BigRed
What country has intervened in ours over the last five or so decades? The last country to intervene was Japan during Pearl Harbor in 1941.

Since that time, we've intervened in countless countries affairs.

Wasn't the Cold War all about intervention?

Originally posted by BigRed
History dictates that Ron Paul and other people that advocate non-interventionism are right. History allows us to look back and realize a failed foreign policy. And by looking at the last near century of our foreign policy of interventionism, we realize it isn't working and has caused a shitload of problems.

You can be a world player without being a "player" if you know what I mean.

When it's time for me to have a grammar lesson buddy, I'll come to you.

.................................................................

Originally posted by lord xyz
You. Have good. Sentences.

Originally posted by Devil King
So, intervention is limited to outright attacking us? I didn't know that.

There are other sources of intervention that we do like overthrowing governments without necessarily bringing in our military. We just use the CIA.

Originally posted by Bardock42
He didn't do anything wrong. Or did he? Just cause you don't like short sentences.They could be constructed into bigger ones. But why should one do that?.

Originally posted by lord xyz
He started a sentence with "and". I admit, I misread it first time round, but it should all be one sentence, or the second one be started differently.

Well actually yes there is, we just don't tend to observe it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well actually yes there is, we just don't tend to observe it.

Which actually makes me wonder. Who decides that for the English language anyways?

Literally gramatically speaking it is, yes, as 'and' is a co-ordinating conjunction and if used at the start of a sentence it has nothing to co-ordinate.

The literal usage of that rule is pretty much out of fashion, though. As to who decides it- good question. English is not a prescriptive language so technically it is up to people to interpret how it is generally used and present that as a rule, but sources will disagree and the process is obscure and imperfect.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Literally gramatically speaking it is, yes, as 'and' is a co-ordinating conjunction and if used at the start of a sentence it has nothing to co-ordinate.

The literal usage of that rule is pretty much out of fashion, though. As to who decides it- good question. English is not a prescriptive language so technically it is up to people to interpret how it is generally used and present that as a rule, but sources will disagree and the process is obscure and imperfect.

Can't it be used to mark an addition to the previous point though not necessarily closely related?

What sources are that? And how do you teach grammar in Schools if it is not really definitive?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I do know it is frowned upon, but is it really grammatically incorrect?

Which actually makes me wonder. Who decides that for the English language anyways?

I think there is a rule that conjunction words like "and" should be between other words.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Can't it be used to mark an addition to the previous point though not necessarily closely related?

What sources are that? And how do you teach grammar in Schools if it is not really definitive?

I like fish 'n' chips and curry. I joined the living room 'n' dining room together into one big room and I'm happy with it that way.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Can't it be used to mark an addition to the previous point though not necessarily closely related?

What sources are that? And how do you teach grammar in Schools if it is not really definitive?

CAN it be that, yes. Will it be understood as doing that, yes. Is it its grammatical function to do that? No. A conjunction cannot link parts of a different sentence, only inside a sentence. It's up to you to decide which of those things is more important- its technical usage or its practical understanding. Personally I find plenty of times when starting with 'and' strikes me as working well.

Sources? Grammar guides all over the place. I put my trust in Oxbridge.

How can you teach language at all when it is not really definitive? It tends to be taught to a particular 'standard' but even that is up to debate. There is no clear consensus on, say, split infintiives amongst teachers.

Not something you normally bother schoolkids with, I think, as with most subjects you only tend to learn that previously established truths are actually rather dodgy when at a higher level.

Originally posted by lord xyz
The same people who decided we start with a capital letter?

I think there is a rule that conjunction words like "and" should be between other words.

Who were those people though?

It's very odd to me.

But I guess it is inappropriate to use. I still think you overreacted.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Who were those people though?

It's very odd to me.

But I guess it is inappropriate to use. I still think you overreacted.

I couldn't read his sentence, I felt satire was appropriate.

Originally posted by lord xyz
The same people who decided we start with a capital letter?

I think there is a rule that conjunction words like "and" should be between other words.

And quite frankly I don't see anything wrong it. Hehe.