Originally posted by AThousandYoungNot to dredge grammar up again, but...
My sister just flashed to a program in which Clinton and Obama were being interviewed. Clinton said she was a big proponent of "coercive diplomacy". I find this creepy. What do you think?
When did people start saying 'flashed' instead of 'turned' to a program?
I mean, you 'turn' to a program because on the TV there is this knob, and when you want to change channels you get up out of your seat, walk over to the set, and turn it.
'Flashed' sounds like you got up and noticed your bathrobe was untied.
Originally posted by spruce112358Fair enough. Replace "flashed" with "turned" if it makes my statement more clear.
Not to dredge grammar up again, but...
When did people start saying 'flashed' instead of 'turned' to a program?
I mean, you 'turn' to a program because on the TV there is this knob, and when you want to change channels you get up out of your seat, walk over to the set, and turn it.
'Flashed' sounds like you got up and noticed your bathrobe was untied.
I used "flash" in an intuitive way, to describe very rapid channel surfing that causes programs to flash onto the screen only to be immediately replaced by some entirely different program with obnoxious colors and explosions and things.
Originally posted by spruce112358I havn't owned a tv with knobs in 15 years. There is, however, a button on some remote's called 'flash', that allows you to go back and forth between channels. I think it is an appropriate use of the word.
Not to dredge grammar up again, but...
When did people start saying 'flashed' instead of 'turned' to a program?
I mean, you 'turn' to a program because on the TV there is this knob, and when you want to change channels you get up out of your seat, walk over to the set, and turn it.
'Flashed' sounds like you got up and noticed your bathrobe was untied.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI guess so. I'm just thinking that diplomacy is about persuading others by threats and promises, but having looked it up, the definition of coercion is much tighter than that.
Doesn't "to coerce" mean to force someone to do something against their will?
Alliances and such aren't coersion (sp?).
Spooky indeed.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWithout a link, it's hard to know exactly what she is supporting. Perhaps she is favoring sanctions and other forms of arm-twisting to the knee jerk use of military force favored by the right. Just digging out a phrase out of all context isn't very illuminating.
My sister just flashed to a program in which Clinton and Obama were being interviewed. Clinton said she was a big proponent of "coercive diplomacy". I find this creepy. What do you think?
The idea of putting inspectors back in -- that was a credible idea. I believe in coercive diplomacy. I think that you try to figure out how to move bad actors in a direction that you prefer in order to avoid more dire consequences.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/31/dem.debate.transcript/index.html?iref=hpmostpop
Originally posted by AThousandYoungDon't the sentences that follow explain the phrase in Sen. Clinton's mind:
The idea of putting inspectors back in -- that was a credible idea. I believe in coercive diplomacy. I think that you try to figure out how to move bad actors in a direction that you prefer in order to avoid more dire consequences.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/31/dem.debate.transcript/index.html?iref=hpmostpop
And if you took it on the face of it and if you took it on the basis of what we hoped would happen with the inspectors going in, that in and of itself was a policy that we've used before. We have used the threat of force to try to make somebody change their behavior.
I think what no one could have fully appreciated is how obsessed this president was with this particular mission. And unfortunately, I and others who warned at the time, who said, let the inspectors finish their work, you know, do not wage a preemptive war, use diplomacy, were just talking to a brick wall.
Originally posted by no1maraudercoercive diplomacy
Don't the sentences that follow explain the phrase in Sen. Clinton's mind:
And if you took it on the face of it and if you took it on the basis of what we hoped would happen with the inspectors going in, that in and of itself was a policy that we've used before. [b]We have used the threat of force to try to make somebody change thei ...[text shortened]... you know, do not wage a preemptive war, use diplomacy, were just talking to a brick wall.[/b]
Almost qualifies as an oxymoron.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAhh - do you think that sometimes alliances are forced upon nations - ie. coercion?
Doesn't "to coerce" mean to force someone to do something against their will?
Alliances and such aren't coersion (sp?).
The whole 'with us or against us' bollocks could be perceived as coercion.