Sorry, no sidetrack. Take for satrap the German word "Stadthalter", the guy who wanted to release Jesus, but agreed to the mob claiming his crossing for blasphemia, since he was afraid of local trouble coming to the ears of his masters in Rome.
Yes, I guess that would serve as another example. Chris should come back and explain himself.
Assuming is a good English word. Why should it get replaced by believing, accepting, supposing...? Sorry, did the teacher just make a joke or is there a really emotional trap in the use of this word?
Yes, it is a joke, but it has a valuable message to it. You assume what you don't know. You can't accuse or convict or make statements on assumptions. To act on assumptions is foolish and risky, especially in business. Our teacher wanted to warn us to be careful with assuming... it could get us into trouble. By making a joke about it he tried to make this little piece of wisdom stick to our memory. He was successful with me!:lol:
As you see, Chris got himself into trouble... I didn't like all his
negative assumptions about me, because none of them were true.
Of course,
believing or
supposing are words of the same meaning, only they don't lend themselves as nicely to joke with!!
Chris is a nice guy, a fiction writer according to his web page, and his thinking goes right along with my own. I hope he has not crawled under the table!
Otherwise, data, you are right, to assume is a perfectly harmless English word. By the way, your English is pretty good. Do you have an opportunity to practice it in Germany? As you know, English isn't my mother tongue either. Just by living here have I picked up my language skills.
Mr. Obama is said to be the hope for change, rather than Hilary. Other skin colour of a president means more of change, than other sex type of the president. Wow, it needs a rocket scientist to puzzle that out.
Ha ha... chuckle, chuckle... well put, data!
Guess who! Guess who the political newbie Barrack chose as his advisor for international affairs (i.e. in terms of US - handling of war): Zbigniew Brzeziński (hawk and friend of hawk Wolfowitz), who let support the Mujahidin since July, 3rd 1979, what provoked Breshnew to jump into the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan half a year later, what got so long refused by the Soviet leadership.
Brzez.. was quite the brain and advised Kennedy, Johnson and Carter in many positive ways. He is also a Human Rights guy and pushes for it's recognition in the US. Data, I don't think he is all that bad as you
might assume by mentioning his association with Wolfowitz. What astonishes me is his age!!! 80 years and still gong strong!!
Not stupid, but discouraged to defend democracy:
People are chased into competitive fights for their daily dollar to secure food and shelter. What intensity shall they develop in checking out their political brainwash? If someone tries to find out political differences between candidates for elections, it turns out to be a waste of time. The avoidance of Barrack Obama to say something besides: "We need change! Now!" ("clever" copied from MDC in Zimbabwe) - that avoidance is very professional “talk without saying something”. Look, how close the alternatives are in the 2008 reelections, or elsewhere in the present world:
http://politicalcompass.org/
True! The average working class voter has little time nor interest to earnestly study and investigate the various political agendas of the candidates. So many decisions are made on gut feelings, personal like or dislike of the one or other candidate, also family and peer pressure play a role.
I like your colourful chart! Your are right, there is hardly any difference between the two main party representatives. As has been stated by many, it doesn't change anything fundamentally.
I once read, that all US Presidents are members of the
AIPAC.
Yesterday 09:19 PM
