<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: NUCLEAR OR NUCULAR?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2010/nuclear-or-nucular/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2010/nuclear-or-nucular/</link>
	<description>a site for people in their right mind</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:48:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kaiser</title>
		<link>http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2010/nuclear-or-nucular/#comment-220075</link>
		<dc:creator>Kaiser</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:23:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/?p=1016#comment-220075</guid>
		<description>If you ask me, if someone who votes for/against someone and forms broad, swiping opinions of that person based on the pronunciation of a single word, they&#039;re dumber than the candidate they ridicule for it.

This goes for everybody.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you ask me, if someone who votes for/against someone and forms broad, swiping opinions of that person based on the pronunciation of a single word, they&#8217;re dumber than the candidate they ridicule for it.</p>
<p>This goes for everybody.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Moto</title>
		<link>http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2010/nuclear-or-nucular/#comment-219951</link>
		<dc:creator>Moto</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:27:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/?p=1016#comment-219951</guid>
		<description>Bush isn&#039;t the only American president to lose the &quot;nucular&quot; war. In his &quot;On Language&quot; column in the New York Times Magazine in May 2001, William Safire lamented that, besides Bush, at least three other presidents—Eisenhower, Carter, and Clinton—have mangled the word.

In fact, Bush&#039;s usage is so common that it appears in at least one dictionary. Merriam-Webster&#039;s, by far the most liberal dictionary, includes the pronunciation, though with a note identifying it as &quot;a pronunciation variant that occurs in educated speech but that is considered by some to be questionable or unacceptable.&quot; A 1961 Merriam-Webster&#039;s edition was the first to include &quot;nucular&quot;; the editors received so many indignant letters that they added a usage note in the 1983 version, pointing out its &quot;widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, U.S. cabinet members, and at least one U.S. president and one vice president.&quot; They even noted its prominence among &quot;British and Canadian speakers.&quot;

Taken from a Slate.com post by Kate Taylor</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bush isn&#8217;t the only American president to lose the &#8220;nucular&#8221; war. In his &#8220;On Language&#8221; column in the New York Times Magazine in May 2001, William Safire lamented that, besides Bush, at least three other presidents—Eisenhower, Carter, and Clinton—have mangled the word.</p>
<p>In fact, Bush&#8217;s usage is so common that it appears in at least one dictionary. Merriam-Webster&#8217;s, by far the most liberal dictionary, includes the pronunciation, though with a note identifying it as &#8220;a pronunciation variant that occurs in educated speech but that is considered by some to be questionable or unacceptable.&#8221; A 1961 Merriam-Webster&#8217;s edition was the first to include &#8220;nucular&#8221;; the editors received so many indignant letters that they added a usage note in the 1983 version, pointing out its &#8220;widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, U.S. cabinet members, and at least one U.S. president and one vice president.&#8221; They even noted its prominence among &#8220;British and Canadian speakers.&#8221;</p>
<p>Taken from a Slate.com post by Kate Taylor</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Other Side</title>
		<link>http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2010/nuclear-or-nucular/#comment-218630</link>
		<dc:creator>The Other Side</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:56:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/?p=1016#comment-218630</guid>
		<description>giving specific examples to support a flawed thesis is meaningless.  to compare obama and bush&#039;s intelligence is disingenuous.  that&#039;s my point.  obama can speak to a room full of house republicans and thoroughly refute their claims, with facts.  did bush ever do that?  no, he only had town hall meetings with pre-selected people.

to the larger issue, there is no liberal media anymore.  liberal blogs (some say the extreme of the left) are frequently dismissed as crazy while the tea parties (some say the extreme of the right) are given platforms to speak.  rudy guiliani is allowed to say that they was no major attack on american soil during the bush administration without being called out.  why is sarah palin given so much air time?  what other quitter former politician has this much positive press?  why are newt gingrich and tom delay brought onto the sunday talk shows after their political careers ended in scandals?  why can conservatives attack the president now when they were calling liberals &quot;treasonous&quot; just a few years ago, and not get called out for that hypocrisy?  even now with the underwear bomber, conservatives are calling obama soft on terror while bush did the same thing with the shoe bomber.  why are people in the media calling for obama to move towards the middle, shouldn&#039;t the liberal media call for obama to be progressive?  why aren&#039;t republicans being shown as obstructionists?

all these examples aren&#039;t on fox news.  if you add fox news to the regular media&#039;s laziness you get a decreasingly liberal media.  you see conservatives allowed to go on the major television networks and lie without being called out or even asked follow up questions.  how can anyone still call the media liberal anymore?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>giving specific examples to support a flawed thesis is meaningless.  to compare obama and bush&#8217;s intelligence is disingenuous.  that&#8217;s my point.  obama can speak to a room full of house republicans and thoroughly refute their claims, with facts.  did bush ever do that?  no, he only had town hall meetings with pre-selected people.</p>
<p>to the larger issue, there is no liberal media anymore.  liberal blogs (some say the extreme of the left) are frequently dismissed as crazy while the tea parties (some say the extreme of the right) are given platforms to speak.  rudy guiliani is allowed to say that they was no major attack on american soil during the bush administration without being called out.  why is sarah palin given so much air time?  what other quitter former politician has this much positive press?  why are newt gingrich and tom delay brought onto the sunday talk shows after their political careers ended in scandals?  why can conservatives attack the president now when they were calling liberals &#8220;treasonous&#8221; just a few years ago, and not get called out for that hypocrisy?  even now with the underwear bomber, conservatives are calling obama soft on terror while bush did the same thing with the shoe bomber.  why are people in the media calling for obama to move towards the middle, shouldn&#8217;t the liberal media call for obama to be progressive?  why aren&#8217;t republicans being shown as obstructionists?</p>
<p>all these examples aren&#8217;t on fox news.  if you add fox news to the regular media&#8217;s laziness you get a decreasingly liberal media.  you see conservatives allowed to go on the major television networks and lie without being called out or even asked follow up questions.  how can anyone still call the media liberal anymore?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: -dan z-</title>
		<link>http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2010/nuclear-or-nucular/#comment-218548</link>
		<dc:creator>-dan z-</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:06:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/?p=1016#comment-218548</guid>
		<description>To &quot;The Other Side:&quot;

The author gave specific examples (these are known as &quot;facts&quot;) to support his thesis. You have given us propaganda.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To &#8220;The Other Side:&#8221;</p>
<p>The author gave specific examples (these are known as &#8220;facts&#8221;) to support his thesis. You have given us propaganda.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Other Side</title>
		<link>http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2010/nuclear-or-nucular/#comment-218515</link>
		<dc:creator>The Other Side</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Feb 2010 21:36:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/?p=1016#comment-218515</guid>
		<description>big difference in education between obama and bush.  there is no question that obama is highly educated but there were questions about bush&#039;s intelligence.

its amazing that this is an example about how the media is biased towards obama.  that could be further from the truth.  how many of the lies about health care have been propagated as news by the media?  how often are republicans brought on television and allowed to lie?

there is no longer a liberal bias in media.  in the media&#039;s eyes, no republican can do wrong and liberals are crazy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>big difference in education between obama and bush.  there is no question that obama is highly educated but there were questions about bush&#8217;s intelligence.</p>
<p>its amazing that this is an example about how the media is biased towards obama.  that could be further from the truth.  how many of the lies about health care have been propagated as news by the media?  how often are republicans brought on television and allowed to lie?</p>
<p>there is no longer a liberal bias in media.  in the media&#8217;s eyes, no republican can do wrong and liberals are crazy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

