I'd say he has been working on isis given the Saudi's statement and the coalition that they've formed.Now that the whole global warming thing is taken care of, you think Obama might spend a few seconds to work or relations with Russia or how about pounding ISIS into bolivian?
Freaking disgraceful. But i can understand mouthbreathers loving it.perhaps the best line of the night
We should have made Pakistan pay for allowing him to hide in their country.
perhaps the best line of the night
I'd say he has been working on isis given the Saudi's statement and the coalition that they've formed.
Is Assad still in power? How're things with Russia? Notice how Obama gave into every one of Iran's demands? How's Egypt? Borders nice and secure?
Why do you go out of your way to confuse yourself? Webster has rather plain definition: weak; ineffective; worthless; irresponsible. Any and all are applicable, and zero difficulty in understanding. Next?I've never understood "feckless." Usually a word can have "less" on the end and be bad or "ful" or something like the end and be good. But there is no feckful. What is feck anyway? If we don't know what feck is then how do we know it's bad to have none of it?
They are serving in Obama admin and he directs his AG to keep hands off. Or they run to the Cities where they have "free base" from law enforcement. Pathetic.And we should make America pay for all the terrorists and criminals hiding in the US.......oh wait, doh!
Why do you go out of your way to confuse yourself? Webster has rather plain definition: weak; ineffective; worthless; irresponsible. Any and all are applicable, and zero difficulty in understanding. Next?
Why do you question the meaning that Webster's offers. Feck / feckless, why do you offer a different word than what was used in the discussion last night. What would have been your inquiry if he had used "******" as the descriptive word in speaking of Obama?Read again, I wasn't talking about "weak," I was talking about "feck."
I just looked up "feck" on dictionary.com and got the following. So in this light "feckless" makes sense, but since the word "feck" isn't used it's kinda weird that "feckless' is used.
noun
1.
(Scot, obsolete)
- worth; value
- amount; quantity
- the greater part; the majority
I think he's looking at this linguistically, not politically.Why do you question the meaning that Webster's offers. Feck / feckless, why do you offer a different word than what was used in the discussion last night. What would have been your inquiry if he had used "******" as the descriptive word in speaking of Obama?
From Opie, that is a possibility. But for the rest of the board, we probably spend a little more time on here discussing politics over linguistics. I think I could be correct on this one.I think he's looking at this linguistically, not politically.
From Opie, that is a possibility. But for the rest of the board, we probably spend a little more time on here discussing politics over linguistics. I think I could be correct on this one.
When you add the ending "less", you have the word used last night which gives opposite meaning. Apply at your offered definitions, and you would get "not" or "less" which would be adequate words descriptive of Obama.Read again, I wasn't talking about "weak," I was talking about "feck."
I just looked up "feck" on dictionary.com and got the following. So in this light "feckless" makes sense, but since the word "feck" isn't used it's kinda weird that "feckless' is used.
noun
1.
(Scot, obsolete)
- worth; value
- amount; quantity
- the greater part; the majority
And we should make America pay for all the terrorists and criminals hiding in the US.......oh wait, doh!
Here's the best line of the night (you had the right guy but the wrong line):
“When I stand across from King Hussein of Jordan, I say to him you have a friend sir who will stand with you to fight this fight,” Christie said during Tuesday's Republican primary debate,
Hussein has been dead for 16 years.
IDIOT!