There's only one different America
« previous post | next post »
There was a huge one thing going on in Grand Rapids, Michigan today. You know, one. Small step, Giant leap, Unity, Togetherness, Indivisible, all that stuff. This guy John, bit of an also ran, but real nice, he was like
There is one man who knows and understands that this is a time for bold leadership. There is one man that knows how to create the change, the lasting change that you have to build from the ground up. There is one man who knows in his heart that it is time to create one America, not two, and that man is…
You know what? The guy who it was, he was right there, and obviously a bit puffed up at that point, so he kinda did this
John Edwards and I believe in a different America. Hillary Clinton believes in a different America. The Democratic Party believes in a different America.
which, you know, sounds to me like at least four different Americas, but apparently it's just
One America, where we rise and fall together as one people and that’s why we are gonna take Washington by storm this November.
Oh, so that's why we're gonna take Washington by storm. Right, I got it now. One man. One people. One America (different).
Trollaxor said,
May 15, 2008 @ 1:22 am
Ein Reich, ein Volk, et cetera…
Kawaiirrhea said,
May 15, 2008 @ 2:45 am
Perhaps the Democratic Party wants to avoid the opposite, an indifferent America?
Robert G. Lee said,
May 15, 2008 @ 2:54 am
So given the two statements posted does that mean the country henceforth will be:
The United State of Americas?
Linca said,
May 15, 2008 @ 3:51 am
Damn, trollaxor beat me to it.
But I have an illustrating video !
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wwdOX19_ETI
Oskar said,
May 15, 2008 @ 4:29 am
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them!
I hear Sauron has been anointed as Howard Dean's successor as chairman of the DNC. The 2012 convention is going to be held in the land of Mordor where the shadows lie!
(sorry, but I couldn't resist. I don't even like Lord of the Rings all that much)
Stephen Jones said,
May 15, 2008 @ 5:18 am
No they believe in the same America. It's just different from the one they're living in at the moment.
Karen said,
May 15, 2008 @ 5:52 am
How come you didn't think he was talking about three men, then?
Zubon said,
May 15, 2008 @ 8:21 am
South America?
Andy Hollandbeck said,
May 15, 2008 @ 10:46 am
Some of us are hoping for a more Scandinavian America. you know, lower unemployment, lower child poverty rate, greater personal liberties, red light districts. That sort of thing.
Oskar said,
May 15, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
Andy, as a Scandinavian, I can assure you that those things are pretty nice. Although we don't really have that many red light districts compared to America. Maybe you're meant you want a more Dutch America, which would be nice too.
Erik Thornquist said,
May 15, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
In fact, there is another possibility than the one in the original posting.
The use of the repeated words can be for rhetorical effect, in which case
each actor would be linked under one category. For those actually scoring at home on your Language Log scorecard, it would look like this:
A DIFFERENT AMERICA:
Obama
Edwards
Clinton
Democratic Party
If it is referential, however, each person could have their own "different America."
I am guessing this is not what the speaker intended, and can only look at possible interpretations. Words are my department; psycholinguistics isn't. I can't measure intention, no matter how many electrodes I have attached to a spaghetti strainer atop someone's head.
Anyway, the post is both funny and incomplete. Perhaps a better discussion of the discourse would have helped.
Bongo Givens said,
May 17, 2008 @ 5:10 am
" . . . one America where we rise and fall together as one people."
I'm all for the rising. It's the falling bit I'm not too sure about. Can we skip that part?
Janice Huth Byer said,
May 18, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
"There is one man who knows… it is time to create one America, not two…"
'One' can mean either singular or united but not in the same sentence. What invites mockery isn't the violation of an intuitive rule, but an equally intuitive sense that such violations signal insincerity. Not that the speaker is being dishonest, only that he's unsure of his meaning, apparently relying on a talking point idea not his own.