My neighbor has a Great Deign.
Is that all we need to do? Then pass the pipe, it’s time to get Hillary elected.
I’d be curious to know on what basis you’d describe the Obama administration as an “absolute clusterfuck” except I’m sure it’s just the usual Fox News arglebargle.
Did you know that the number of private sector jobs in the U.S. actually decreased during the Bush Jr. Administration? True fact. That’s a feat no other post-WW2 President managed. And that of course is just one dimension of the real “absolute clusterfuck” that was the previous Presidency.
I would vote for Hillary just to watch neocon heads explode when they have to say ‘President Clinton’ again.
Let’s make Michelle Obama VP and really make their day.
Is it a Great Deign, or just a Really Good Deign?
Since it shits on our lawn, I would personally call it a Shitty Deign, but don’t quote me to my neighbor.
I think you mean “deignnabbit”.
I have my doubts as to whether you’re actually doing that.
She might not. But she certainly has a chance.
You thinking that the Obama administration was a clusterfuck, is the result of your believing the lies and nonsense propaganda spoon-fed to you by RW media. Very little of that is real.
Because of you living in the conservative bubble, you have skewed your perceptions until you cannot accurately think about issues. You’re a stooge manipulated by people who think very little of you, and only care that they can brainwash you into storming into the election booth and checking the box marked, “R”.
Neither of those things is true. This is more of you being duped by cynical forces you don’t see for what they are. You’re a like a Moonie, or a Scientologist, or a Mormon. A baffled, small thing feeling what other people tell you to feel.
She’s a much more accomplished person than you are. Not that that’s a high bar, mind you.
Applause. Clothahump’s ignorant bullshit is the same stuff I see in the comments section of the Alaska paper. It’s always along the lines of “Hur-de-hur, libtards R to stoopid becuz Bengozzi.” The same tired, debunked nonsense repeated to each other a hundred thousand times doesn’t make it the truth.
I’m still waiting to hear back from the following people:
**Enginerd
Truman Burbank
BigT
Ethilrist
**
Feel free to deign your apologies at any time. Admit you were wrong, and I’ll let you save face.
Do you even know why your post got such traction?
It’s because you said some prejudiced shit and wasn’t even aware of it. It’s like watching some guy think he’s sneaking a fart out at party, and you see him shit his pants.
You shit your pants and people said you stink. That doesn’t make them shitty ones.
The nominative form is best when specific. Is it the witnesses to the festive eructation who are derided as “shitty”, or the trousers itself?
(This fulfills my quota for snotty pedantry this month…)
You will “let” them save face?
You have no power to deprive them of face and your multiple examples of poor word choice means that only an extremely partisan twit, whose opinions are universally dismissed and denigrated as the expressions of a mindless sycophant to your baseless posturing, is going to support you.
The unsupportable hubris you demonstrate with your claim makes the utterances of the Black Knight in Monty Pyhon and the Holy Grail look like the more profound views of Wittgenstein.
I deign him Twittgenstein.
It is poor form to correct one’s grammar, only to be proven wrong. They are welcome to show the intellectual integrity of apologizing for their overzealous errancy.
And you, passively defending their blatantly false accusation of grammatical mishap, are in turn showing considerably poor form. Knowing they have erred and instead doubling-down to defend them…is not the stance of a principled actor.
Thus blow the winds; choose your side, veracity be damned.
“I use archaic forms of words not only to show off but to have ready a scathing retort to the would-be pedants who think they have caught me in a misusage…llllladies.”
Took a few liberties with the definitions there didn’t you? I mean, you linked to deign in one dictionary, but you linked to vouchsafe in another. Often, words have multiple meanings, but only one of those multiple meanings is a synonym for another word. Let’s see what happens if we look up vouchsafe in the same dictionary you linked to for deign*:
Huh. That definition tells you the sense in which vouchsafe and deign are synonymous, and it’s not the one you posted. The definition of “deign” did the same thing: “to condescend to give or grant; vouchsafe.” If “deign” meant “reveal,” the dictionary would probably use that word in the definition instead of “vouchsafe” - it’s a lot more common and widely understood, which is the point of a dictionary. Likewise, you’d probably find a synonym like “reveal” or “disclose” in a thesaurus entry for deign… but no dice there either. I don’t know if you’re so vain that you’ll knowingly post misleading snippets of dictionary definitions, or if you’re just too stupid to operate a dictionary, but I don’t really care. I will not deign to offer you an apology at this time.
I will admit that your usage in this thread fits the archaic definition that smeghead noted, but you’d have a hard time convincing me that was intentional.
*Also, if you look up deign in the google dictionary you linked for “vouchsafe,” there’s no mention of the word “vouchsafe” in that definition.
… for this?
You kept using that word. It does not mean what you think it meant. No apology offered.
Stringbean, meet Oh Snapbean.
Shoulda gone with Kierkegaard, since he’s Deignish and all.