Bush Indictment in Vermont

[violet girl{MM}]

Voters in two Vermont towns approved measures Tuesday calling for the indictment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for what they consider violations of the Constitution.

More symbolic than anything, the items sought to have police arrest Bush and Cheney if they ever visit Brattleboro or nearby Marlboro or to extradite them for prosecution elsewhere - if they're not impeached first. (quoted from an AP article)

Does anyone have any thoughts on the matter? i for one say, "Bravo, Brattleboro and Marlboro!" :)

[Warbaby1943]

I say it is a bunch of bullshit and never would be enforced. Seems like grandstanding to me.

[violet girl{MM}]

Yes, it is bullshit and cannot be upheld in anyway. It is symbolic, but i am one who dislikes our current "leader" more than anything in the world, so it made me laugh a happy little giggle when i heard about this while watching the returns last night.

[mkemse]

very nice symbolism even if nothing happens with it, at least let's people in the country know how others feel

[mkemse]

I say it is a bunch of bullshit and never would be enforced. Seems like grandstanding to me.

that is all it was intented to be, but falls under the excersize of Freedom of Speach and Expression

[DungeonMaster6]

Nothing will ever come of it, but I'm no fan of the present administration either. Nothing would please me more than to see Bush and Cheney taken out of their offices in handcuffs.

[mkemse]

Nothing will ever come of it, but I'm no fan of the present administration either. Nothing would please me more than to see Bush and Cheney taken out of their offices in handcuffs.

I agree but like you said it will never happen it might have if not for the elections in Novmember

[wmrs2]

Voters in two Vermont towns approved measures Tuesday calling for the indictment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for what they consider violations of the Constitution.

More symbolic than anything, the items sought to have police arrest Bush and Cheney if they ever visit Brattleboro or nearby Marlboro or to extradite them for prosecution elsewhere - if they're not impeached first. (quoted from an AP article)

Does anyone have any thoughts on the matter? i for one say, "Bravo, Brattleboro and Marlboro!" :)

Anything coming out of Vermont does not surprise the American patriot. President Bush and Vice President Chaney is used to the disrespect Vermont shows to the rest of the country. The Liberals there have had more kind things to say about the Taliban than they have said about Bush and Chaney. Hugo Chavez is so well loved there that Hugo is going to kick off his next election campaign in Marlboro. That is, of course, if Vermont has not succeeded from the Union by then. The USA is not Liberal enough for Vermont even though they have the screaming leader of the Liberal Party there, John Dean.

By the way Chavez blames Bush for 9/11 too, just like Vermont, Russia, China, and the other Liberal counties of the world. The Liberals around the world don't care how much disrespect Vermont shows for the American political system. It is so popular for the Liberal Communist countries to blame Bush, who is the world's real leading democrat, that Chavez may go unchallenged in ascribing his war problems on Bush, just like the Liberals in this country. Makes you feel so good if your a Liberal.

Don't expect the Liberal Democrats in Vermont to say or do anything to defend the honor of our country and our President. They are too busy praising the Liberal judges there who routinely turn child molesters lose on the streets. The Liberals there have never seen a child molester that did not need a second, third chance to make a mistake. See, you have to understand that the American system caused these molesters to be like they are. That does seem to be true only in the Liberal State of Vermont.

So, go ahead and join in on the disrespect for the President. Your in good company.:icon176:

[mkemse]

Anything coming out of Vermont does not surprise the American patriot. President Bush and Vice President Chaney is used to the disrespect Vermont shows to the rest of the country. The Liberals there have had more kind things to say about the Taliban than they have said about Bush and Chaney. Hugo Chavez is so well loved there that Hugo is going to kick off his next election campaign in Marlboro. That is, of course, if Vermont has not succeeded from the Union by then. The USA is not Liberal enough for Vermont even though they have the screaming leader of the Liberal Party there, John Dean.

By the way Chavez blames Bush for 9/11 too, just like Vermont, Russia, China, and the other Liberal counties of the world. The Liberals around the world don't care how much disrespect Vermont shows for the American political system. It is so popular for the Liberal Communist countries to blame Bush, who is the world's real leading democrat, that Chavez may go unchallenged in ascribing his war problems on Bush, just like the Liberals in this country. Makes you feel so good if your a Liberal.

Don't expect the Liberal Democrats in Vermont to say or do anything to defend the honor of our country and our President. They are too busy praising the Liberal judges there who routinely turn child molesters lose on the streets. The Liberals there have never seen a child molester that did not need a second, third chance to make a mistake. See, you have to understand that the American system caused these molesters to be like they are. That does seem to be true only in the Liberal State of Vermont.

So, go ahead and join in on the disrespect for the President. Your in good company.:icon176:

The lasr Ferdal Judge to turn a child molester free was a Bush Appointed Judge
I have no issue if you do not care for Liberals, but do not call Liberals Non Patriotic, I am as Patriotic and Love The United States a much as any, do not confuse Liberalism with Lack Of Pationism, they are 2 entirely different things
btw HAVE WONDERFULL NIGHT !!! :wave:

i do have one question for you no poltical in nature

[mkemse]

also why no pick on ALL BLUE States not just Vermont??

[mkemse]

also, you seem to inffer that if one is NOT a Conservative, and LOVES the current President, they are not Patriotic, please clearift that??
I can Be a LIberal, NOT apprve ofthe Job the Prsident is doing and that does NOT MAKE ME any less Patriot then you are my friend, if it does please exaplni why??

[mkemse]

BTW they had a minor bombing outside a Miltary Recruiting Staton in Times Square Today, I truely and Sincenrely hope they catch the Scumbag that did that and hang his/her butt there is no reason for that, if you do not like what is going on is washington or the WArs on Terror, that is one thing, but to bomb a recuting Office like was done is beyond despicable no reason on earth for that, and thankgfully from what i hear only minor dmamge and no injuries and they have a video tape of the person leaving the scence hope the NYPD catches that person

[wmrs2]

also, you seem to inffer that if one is NOT a Conservative, and LOVES the current President, they are not Patriotic, please clearift that??
I can Be a LIberal, NOT apprve ofthe Job the Prsident is doing and that does NOT MAKE ME any less Patriot then you are my friend, if it does please exaplni why??

mkemse, I know you can do better in writing because of that excellent report you did on the Patriot Act. Slow down. This is not world war here, just a debate.

First, we have not said a Liberal cannot be a patriot. He certainly can be. But since a Liberal, Communist, or S*****ist are all the same words and generally employ the same logical system used by Communism, dictatorships, and what democrats (not Democrat party) consider to be a poor logical system, when you as a Liberal or Communists act upon your logic, you are automatically at odds with American values mentioned in the Constitution of the USA.

I know this is a mouth full. Read what I said again so as to not misunderstand what has been said. Since I know you are good at research, you can search out the specifics of the Liberal and Communist logic. You will find that German philosopher is the author of the logical system used by Communism and Liberals. When the Communist used this system it was called the Communist dialectic. It was originally called Hegelian logic. The reason people are insulted when it is pointed out that they think like a Liberal is because Hegelian logic has been used by the world's most evil rulers. You will read about these facts if you care to read about Hegelian logic. You will discover that Hegelian logic says truth does not exist such as any absolute. What appears to be true today will not be true a year from now or even a day from now. Like the Communist dialectic says what is true today has an antithesis tomorrow and the next day a synthesis. Truth is like an organism, it grows and changes. When Liberal Judge interpret the Constitution of the USA they believe the Constitution is alive and changes. To them self evident truths that our forefathers wrote about in 1775 and on are not now the same. When Obama told that cock and bull story about the American soldiers taking weapons from the Taliban and using these weapons, every military person in the world knew he was telling a lie. It was so stupid. NBC the very next day said that the fact that Obama lied was alright because he was trying to explain a greater truth.

Aristotelian logic is what logic is the Constitution is based upon. It is based upon absolute knowledge. This is truth that does not change. Conservatives believe the Constitution should be interpreted "strictly" and claim that the Liberal interpretation is re-writing the Constitution. That is why Conservatives do not want a Liberal judge appointed to the Supreme Court.

Have you ever had these things explained to you? I will look forward to future, friendly conversations with you and your friends. We all might learn something. I would really like to understand what value you see in being a Liberal. So read about Liberalism and get back with us. :wave:

[mkemse]

mkemse, I know you can do better in writing because of that excellent report you did on the Patriot Act. Slow down. This is not world war here, just a debate.

First, we have not said a Liberal cannot be a patriot. He certainly can be. But since a Liberal, Communist, or S*****ist are all the same words and generally employ the same logical system used by Communism, dictatorships, and what democrats (not Democrat party) consider to be a poor logical system, when you as a Liberal or Communists act upon your logic, you are automatically at odds with American values mentioned in the Constitution of the USA.

I know this is a mouth full. Read what I said again so as to not misunderstand what has been said. Since I know you are good at research, you can search out the specifics of the Liberal and Communist logic. You will find that German philosopher is the author of the logical system used by Communism and Liberals. When the Communist used this system it was called the Communist dialectic. It was originally called Hegelian logic. The reason people are insulted when it is pointed out that they think like a Liberal is because Hegelian logic has been used by the world's most evil rulers. You will read about these facts if you care to read about Hegelian logic. You will discover that Hegelian logic says truth does not exist such as any absolute. What appears to be true today will not be true a year from now or even a day from now. Like the Communist dialectic says what is true today has an antithesis tomorrow and the next day a synthesis. Truth is like an organism, it grows and changes. When Liberal Judge interpret the Constitution of the USA they believe the Constitution is alive and changes. To them self evident truths that our forefathers wrote about in 1775 and on are not now the same. When Obama told that cock and bull story about the American soldiers taking weapons from the Taliban and using these weapons, every military person in the world knew he was telling a lie. It was so stupid. NBC the very next day said that the fact that Obama lied was alright because he was trying to explain a greater truth.

Aristotelian logic is what logic is the Constitution is based upon. It is based upon absolute knowledge. This is truth that does not change. Conservatives believe the Constitution should be interpreted "strictly" and claim that the Liberal interpretation is re-writing the Constitution. That is why Conservatives do not want a Liberal judge appointed to the Supreme Court.

Have you ever had these things explained to you? I will look forward to future, friendly conversations with you and your friends. We all might learn something. I would really like to understand what value you see in being a Liberal. So read about Liberalism and get back with us. :wave:

Do not classify LIberals And Communists together becausethat inffers if you are a Liberal you are also a Communits which i never have been and have no desire to be being a LIberal is just fine with me but lease refrain from using LIberalism and Communism toether they are not the same if anytnigh and i am not saying ti is true coummnists are very conservative or they woulfd not rule countries like Castro did for 49 years they wouls eek change most conservative i know are not real fond of change

[Thorne]

Let's see, here:
Communists deny people their rights and freedoms, correct?
Bush & Cheney, conservatives by anyone's measure, have also denied people their rights and freedoms, correct?
Liberal Democrats are trying to regain those rights and freedoms, are they not?

In Communist countries, you are either a good, loyal Communist or you are a traitor. There's no middle ground, right?
According to the local conservative mouthpiece here, if you don't support the government, in the form of Bush & Cheney, you are a terrorist and a traitor.

Damn! It sounds to me like Conservatives have more in common with Communists than the Liberals do! Right?

[mkemse]

Let's see, here:
Communists deny people their rights and freedoms, correct?
Bush & Cheney, conservatives by anyone's measure, have also denied people their rights and freedoms, correct?
Liberal Democrats are trying to regain those rights and freedoms, are they not?

In Communist countries, you are either a good, loyal Communist or you are a traitor. There's no middle ground, right?
According to the local conservative mouthpiece here, if you don't support the government, in the form of Bush & Cheney, you are a terrorist and a traitor.

Damn! It sounds to me like Conservatives have more in common with Communists than the Liberals do! Right?

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!:wave:

[mkemse]

mkemse, I know you can do better in writing because of that excellent report you did on the Patriot Act. Slow down. This is not world war here, just a debate.

First, we have not said a Liberal cannot be a patriot. He certainly can be. But since a Liberal, Communist, or S*****ist are all the same words and generally employ the same logical system used by Communism, dictatorships, and what democrats (not Democrat party) consider to be a poor logical system, when you as a Liberal or Communists act upon your logic, you are automatically at odds with American values mentioned in the Constitution of the USA.

I know this is a mouth full. Read what I said again so as to not misunderstand what has been said. Since I know you are good at research, you can search out the specifics of the Liberal and Communist logic. You will find that German philosopher is the author of the logical system used by Communism and Liberals. When the Communist used this system it was called the Communist dialectic. It was originally called Hegelian logic. The reason people are insulted when it is pointed out that they think like a Liberal is because Hegelian logic has been used by the world's most evil rulers. You will read about these facts if you care to read about Hegelian logic. You will discover that Hegelian logic says truth does not exist such as any absolute. What appears to be true today will not be true a year from now or even a day from now. Like the Communist dialectic says what is true today has an antithesis tomorrow and the next day a synthesis. Truth is like an organism, it grows and changes. When Liberal Judge interpret the Constitution of the USA they believe the Constitution is alive and changes. To them self evident truths that our forefathers wrote about in 1775 and on are not now the same. When Obama told that cock and bull story about the American soldiers taking weapons from the Taliban and using these weapons, every military person in the world knew he was telling a lie. It was so stupid. NBC the very next day said that the fact that Obama lied was alright because he was trying to explain a greater truth.

Aristotelian logic is what logic is the Constitution is based upon. It is based upon absolute knowledge. This is truth that does not change. Conservatives believe the Constitution should be interpreted "strictly" and claim that the Liberal interpretation is re-writing the Constitution. That is why Conservatives do not want a Liberal judge appointed to the Supreme Court.

Have you ever had these things explained to you? I will look forward to future, friendly conversations with you and your friends. We all might learn something. I would really like to understand what value you see in being a Liberal. So read about Liberalism and get back with us. :wave:

to answer your question:

Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Middle Ages and Age of Enlightenment.

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.[2] All liberals — as well as some adherents of other political ideologies — support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.[3]

Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Social progressivism, the belief that traditions do not carry any inherent value and social practices ought to be continuously adjusted for the greater benefit of humanity, is a common component of liberal ideology. Liberalism is also strongly associated with the belief that human society should be organized in accordance with certain unchangeable and inviolable rights. Different schools of liberalism are based on different conceptions of human rights, but there are some rights that all liberals support to some extent, including rights to life, liberty, and property.

Within liberalism, there are two major currents of thought that often compete over the use of the term "liberal" and have been known to clash on many issues, as they differ on their understanding of what constitutes freedom. Classical liberals, believe that the provision of negative rights, that is freedom from coercion alone, constitutes freedom.[4] As a result they see state intervention in the economy as a coercive power that restricts freedom when enforced coercively by law, emphasize laissez-faire economic policy, and oppose the welfare state.[5] Social liberals argue that freedom from economic as well as physical coercion is necessary for real freedom. They generally favor such positive rights as the right to vote, the right to an education, the right to health care, and the right to a living wage. Some also favor laws against discrimination in housing and employment, laws against pollution of the environment, and the provision of welfare, including unemployment benefit and housing for the homeless, all supported by progressive taxation

Communism is a form of government which attempts to empower workers and eliminate social class. Its socioeconomic structure promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production.[1] It is usually considered a branch of the broader so******t movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution[2]. Communism attempts to offer an alternative to the problems believed to be inherent with representative democracy, capitalist economies and the legacy of imperialism and colonialism. The dominant forms of communism, such as Leninism, Trotskyism and Luxemburgism, are based on Marxism. Karl Marx is sometimes known as the "father of Communism", but non-Marxist versions of communism (such as Christian communism and anarchist communism) also exist.


Based on the above definition it seems to me that Liberalism or Liberls are 100% the opposite of Communisim or Communists, Liberals seek change Communist deny it in all stages as stated above, the only thing they have in common is humanity and Communists even opress humanity in their counbtir, i do not see much Freedom In Cuba, Or North korea, Or to a lesser Extend Russia, all of which are noted Communitst Countries, they do not have Freedom Of Speeech, Expression even their Media is govenrnent owed and or at least operated
At least in this Country minus a few things NOT gurnteed by the united States Contitution as Freedom Of Speech peole here are free to say as they wish and not worry about going to jail for it
But remember in the United States are are 2 or 3 things that can NOT be said in pubilic as they are NOT covered by our Freedom of Speech Laws here

[John56{vg}]

Thorne and mkemse great posts even after the conservative water carrier brought out the all-too erroneous assertions that are the hallmark of their ilk. When the facts are not too your liking, change them.

The patriot angle is getting very old. With the current president he talks about patriotism and supporting the troops while taking away veteran's benefits and going back on his word to soldiers, making them do longer and longer tours to conduct his illegal and unjust War.

He is even now trying to protect himself and his conies from being prosecuted for the crimes he has committed by spying on Americans and ignoring the Constitution, vastly unAmerican ideals.

I for one am an American who loves his country, And loving the president is NOT the same thing. When that president decides to ignore the will of the people and to try to build a petty dictatorship within our boundaries, then I am a patriot who wants my country back.

And the ludicrous assumption that Liberalism equals Communism is just drivel, I mean come on. Putin is a hardline Communist and he and Bush are, sadly, cut from the same throat. No comparison with Liberal ideals at all.

And I applaud The two towns in Vermont. Sometiems symbolic gestures are all you have. With a corrupt administration and a do-nothing Congress what else do we have available to us.

[wmrs2]

to answer your question:


Based on the above definition it seems to me that Liberalism or Liberls are 100% the opposite of Communisim or Communists, Liberals seek change Communist deny it in all stages as stated above, the only thing they have in common is humanity and Communists even opress humanity in their counbtir, i do not see much Freedom In Cuba, Or North korea, Or to a lesser Extend Russia, all of which are noted Communitst Countries, they do not have Freedom Of Speeech, Expression even their Media is govenrnent owed and or at least operated
At least in this Country minus a few things NOT gurnteed by the united States Contitution as Freedom Of Speech peole here are free to say as they wish and not worry about going to jail for it
But remember in the United States are are 2 or 3 things that can NOT be said in pubilic as they are NOT covered by our Freedom of Speech Laws here

You best stick to what others have written for you or to repeating what you have copied out of a book as you do in report giving. You do not do so well when you ascribe it on your own, as your independent lecture contradicts itself from the beginning. No insult here is intended but it is difficult to understand what you are saying. You covered a lot of material but did not mention the thinking process of Liberalism nor traditional American thought processes based on absolute truth that does not change.

To be continued.

[mkemse]

You best stick to what others have written for you or to repeating what you have copied out of a book as you do in report giving. You do not do so well when you ascribe it on your own, as your independent lecture contradicts itself from the beginning. No insult here is intended but it is difficult to understand what you are saying. You covered a lot of material but did not mention the thinking process of Liberalism nor traditional American thought processes based on absolute truth that does not change.

To be continued.

Have A Great Day

Liberalsism ans Communisim have ZERO is COMMOM
I have copied Zero out of as book

The Fish Ate biting here

[mkemse]

Fini ???

[rora]

It's a total waste of taxpayers money.

[gagged_Louise]

Considering that impeachment of Bush or Cheney isn't gonna happen, although there would have been some legal reasons, this is a great symbolic gesture. Kudos to Marlboro and Brattleboro!

By the way Bush is by no means the only recent democratically elected "leader" who's had criminal trials hanging over him. Tony Blair, Silvio Berlusconi and Jacques Chirac have all been subject to police interest on charges of deliberate, grave criminal fraud while they were sitting as pm or president, though none of them were arrested.

[mkemse]

It's a total waste of taxpayers money.


Very True but a Great Gesture, But just as Bush has wasted Billions of our Tax Payer Dollars on his illegal wars, what goes around comes around

[Ozme52]

I have copied Zero out of as book



If you've copied nothing... then you really are quite insulting to us when you choose to not spellcheck or proof your posts.

Are you doing it on purpose?

[Ozme52]

Very True but a Great Gesture, But just as Bush has wasted Billions of our Tax Payer Dollars on his illegal wars, what goes around comes around

I'm the first to agree that this war is misguided, unnecessary, and ill-advised. In what way is it illegal?

[mkemse]

I'm the first to agree that this war is misguided, unnecessary, and ill-advised. In what way is it illegal?

congress never approved it all they did was approve the funding after we went in he went in there without congressinoal approval which is required by the contitution which strictly prohibted our invasion of a Soverien Nation without due course or reason and even Bush fiunaly admited 3-4 ywears ago that the WMD info he had was faulty intelligence but he never asked congress to delcare warwhich is is required to do ubder the UnitedStates constitution

Below is the Congressional authorization for force that Bush used to launch the invasion of Iraq. However, if you read Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited, and appear to be created by the Pentagon Office at the heart of the latest Israeli spy scandal.

Therefore, under United States law, the war in Iraq is illegal. And We The People are not under any legal or moral obligation to pay for it, let alone let our kids be killed in it.

If anything, Bush and his pro-war Neocon buddies should be required to reimburse the treasury for their private use of government property. I leave the question of civil lawsuits for wrongful deaths to the families of the dead American service people, and the live service people still suffering from depleted uranium.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)

HJ 114 EH

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Passed the House of Representatives October 10, 2002.

Attest:

Clerk.

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[mkemse]

addtionaly to the above

ILLEGAL WAR

The following is a chronological account of the actions of

President George W. Bush leading U.S. illegally to war with Iraq.



Fall, 1999
Before his presidency, Bush reveals his interest in invading Iraq.

Author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz recounts Bush's comment that: "One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief... My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it... If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it." Herskowitz states that "Bush expressed frustration in a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow," (Russ Barker, GNN.tv October 28, 2004).



Early 2001
CIA informes the Bush administration that the "aluminum tubes," later to be used as evidence of a nuclear WMD program, were probably not intended for that purpose.

In the article, CIA officials and a senior administration official tell us that National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice's staff had been told in 2001 that Energy Department experts believed the tubes were most likely intended for small artillery rockets, and not a nuclear program. (New York Times, Octbober 3, 2004)



March, 2002
Despite his later claims that he had not yet decided to attack Iraq, Bush indicates his intention to do so.

Bush states to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and three U.S. Senators: "Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out," (Time Magazine, March 24, 2003).



March, 2002
Prior to Congress' October 11th authorization of the Iraq invasion, Bush initiates war in Iraq's No Fly Zone.

Bush ordered the tonnage of bombs being dropped on Iraq from 0 in March 2002 and 0.3 in April 2002 to between 7 and 14 tons per month in May-August, reaching a pre-war declaration peak of 54.6 tons in September (New Statesman, May 30, 2005).

The UN established No Fly Zones in 1991 (in UN resolution 688) and 1992. Accordingly, it is illegal for the allied pilots (U.K. & U.S.) to bomb within the NFZs except to prevent humanitarian crises between the Sunis and the Shias or in self-defense. To constitute self-defense, "there must be more than 'a threat'. There has to be an armed attack, actual or imminent. The development of posession of nuclear weapons does not in itself amount to an armed attack; what would be needed would be clear evidence of an imminent attack" (Declassified British Foreign Office legal advice: March 2002).



July 23, 2002
During a meeting of top U.S. and U.K. officials regarding a possible attack on Iraq, foreign policy aide Matthew Rycroft makes the following observations about Bush's comments (Declassified U.K. Downing Street Documents: March 8 - July 23, 2002).
"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided."

"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

“Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

In reference to Bush's illegal bombings begun in May: "The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime."

“There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”

“The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record.”

“No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.”


August 10, 2002

Bush claims publicly that he has no imminent war plan or timetable for war with Iraq, despite clear indications to the contrary in the Downing Street memo and despite having previously initiated bombing in the NFZs (Transcript, Ridgewood Country Club in Waco, TX).



September 19, 2002
President Bush sends the Iraq Resolution to Congress requesting authorization to use military force against Iraq (White House Video & Transcript).



October 16, 2002

Congress grants authorization to go to war with Iraq in order to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq," or to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." Subsequently, Bush failed to meet either of these conditions for war.(Congress' Authorization to go to War)



February 2002 - January 28, 2003

Numerous sources advising the Bush Administration debunk allegations that Niger sold "yellow-cake" uranium, used in the construction of WMDs, to Iraq. However, in Bush's subsequent State of the Union Address to Congress, he claims that the sale did occur. Misleading Congress is a crime.(CNN, March 14th, 2003)


February 2002
Cheney requests that the uranium sales story be investigated, and Ambassador Wilson is sent to Niger to do so. (New York Times, July 6, 2003)


February 2002
Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick informs Wilson that she had already informed Washington that the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq were false. (New York Times, July 6, 2003)


March 9th, 2002
Wilson's report is given to the White House. The report concludes there was no evidence that the uranium sale had occurred, and that it would be extremely unlikely for it to have taken place. (Time, Jul. 21, 2003)


Early October, 2002
CIA Director George Tenet argues “to White House officials, including Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley,” that the Nigerian uranium claim should not be included in Bush's October 7th speech because the allegation is based on only one source. (WashingtonPost & Truthout.org, July 23, 2003)


Fall, 2002

The former head of CIA covert operations in Europe and a 26-year veteran of the agency, Tyler Drumheller, states that the allegations did not hold together. According to Drumheller, the CIA informed the White House that "the Africa story is overblown" and "the evidence is weak.'" Drumheller also reports that the Bush Administration had intelligence from Saddam Hussein's inner circle indicating that Iraq "had no active weapons of mass destruction program." Bush's speech writers took the uranium reference out of the October 7th speech (CBS, April 23, 2006), though they would add it back in to subsequent speeches.


December, 2002
Director General of the IAEA Mohamed ElBaradei sends a letter to the White House and the National Security Council warning senior officials that he believes the documents were forgeries and should not be cited by the administration as evidence that Iraq was actively trying to obtain WMDs. ElBaradei receives no written response to his letter, despite repeated follow-up calls he makes to the White House, the NSC and the State Department (Couterbias, January 27, 2006).


January 12, 2003

The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research expresses "concerns to the CIA that the documents pertaining to the Iraq-Niger deal were forgeries" and notes that it may already have informed intelligence agencies of this (Declassified State Department Memo to the Undersecretary).


January 17, 2003

The State Department tells the CIA that the intelligence reports upon which the uranium claims were based were forgeries (Declassified State Department Memo to the Undersecretary).


January 28, 2003
Despite having been informed numerous times to the contrary, Bush claims in his State of the Union Address to Congress that "the British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" (White House Video & Transcript).




January 28, 2003
Bush misleads congress about chemicle WMDs

Bush claims in his State of the Union address to Congress that Iraq is pursuing and has vast stockpiles of checmical weapons. In this speech, he leaves out key words used by his intelligence agency which modify the assertions he puts forth. These modifications would have cast doubt on his assertions, and the removal of these modifyers amounts to misleading congress. An analysis of these changes to the intelligence reports was made by John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, and a former counsel to the President. (FindLaw, July 18, 2003)



January 31, 2003

The New York Times and The Guardian reports that a secret memo reveals that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair agreed to invade Iraq even without U.N. backing (NYTimes, March 27, 2006; The Guardian, Feb. 3rd, 2006):


"Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme."

"The diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning", Bush told Blair.

The memo is also said to reveal that President Bush suggested "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours," in order to provoke Saddam to shoot on them, therefore putting Iraq in breach of United Nations resolutions.


March 6, 2003

Bush indicates to the public that he hasn't decided to take military action, and is open to a peaceful resolution.

"I've not made up our mind about military action. [sic] Hopefully, this can be done peacefully...” (George W. Bush, White House Press Conference White House Video & Transcript)



March 7, 2003

United Nations Chief Weapons Inspector (Hans Blix) report on WMDs. Shows Iraq was cooperating with weapons inspectors, and presence of WMDs could not be confirmed. Inspector indicated more time was needed as Iraq was becoming increasingly forthcoming, and much progress was being made. A prediction of months (not weeks or years) was needed. Bush is to later pull these inspectors from Iraq and claim Saddam "wouldn't let them in." (CNN, March 7, 2003)



March 8, 2003

Bush indicates to the public that he is attempting to avoid war with Iraq:

“We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq.” (George W. Bush Radio Address, White House Video & Transcript)



March 17, 2003

Bush advises U.N. weapons inspectors to leave Iraq Immediately. (Address to Nation, White House Video & Transcript)



March 17, 2003

Bush indicating publically, a willingness to work with the United Nations and respect it's mission:
"America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations." (George W. Bush, in Address to the Nation, White House Video & Transcript)



March 18, 2003

Bush Letter to Congress prior to revealing the ongoing war:
"[A]cting pursuant to the Constitution and [the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002] is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." (White House, March, 2003)



March 19, 2003

Bush reveals ongoing war with Iraq and increases intensity. War announced despite Iraq not having been shown to be a threat to the U.S., and without a resolution from the U.N. Security Council. These conditions were required by Congress' authorization to go to war. (White House Video & Transcript)



July 14, 2003

Bush lying to public about his confidence about WMDs and the status of weapons inspectors prior to the war:
"The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region..." (George W. Bush, Photo Op in the Oval Office, White House Video & Transcript)



September 17, 2003

This shows that Bush knew about the lack of connection between Iraq and 9/11, a connection he implied existed in his letter to Congress.
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11." (White House Transcript and Video)



July 29, 2004

(Declassified CIA-commissioned report on pre-war intelligence)


"Some in the Intelligence Community and elsewhere hold the view that intense policymaker demands in the run-up to the war constituted inappropriate pressure on intelligence analysts."

"Despite the pressure, however, the Intelligence Community remained firm in its assessment that no operational or collaborative relationship existed [between Iraq and al-Qa'ida]. In the case of Iraq's possession of WMD, on the other hand, analytic judgments and policy views were in accord, so that the impact of pressure, if any, was more nuanced and may have been considered reinforcing."

[wmrs2]

There is no need to reply to all your data. It would be too long a process by which time the usefulness of our discussion would be lost. It is common knowledge that the war in Iraq exist on a legal based vote of Congress and the Security Council of the United Nations. The presidential candidates do not debate that. Hillary admits she voted for the war but then changed her mind after public opinion turned against the war. Her morarl courage comes from the logic used by Liberals. She checked the polls to determine her beliefs, like a Liberal where her values are based on changing truth or expedience. Do you not agree with that?

President Bush was authorized by Congress to go to war with Iraq and by the Constitution of the USA. It's just that Liberals do not have to stand by their principles or values because in there way of thinking truth is ever changing. So when the going gets tough it is easy for the Liberals to back out of their commitment and blame Bush. Liberals committed to the war effort just like Bush. It is not patriotic to desert our soldiers in war just because you do not like the war. Therefore, to appear to be patriotic, Liberals falsely come up with this slogan that Bush lied. If Bush lied, so did a whole lot of Liberals.

Now, this is what makes sense not that gobbledygook stuff you copy out of a book and expect everybody to fall for your Liberal interpretation of facts.

[mkemse]

There is no need to reply to all your data. It would be too long a process by which time the usefulness of our discussion would be lost. It is common knowledge that the war in Iraq exist on a legal based vote of Congress and the Security Council of the United Nations. The presidential candidates do not debate that. Hillary admits she voted for the war but then changed her mind after public opinion turned against the war. Her morarl courage comes from the logic used by Liberals. She checked the polls to determine her beliefs, like a Liberal where her values are based on changing truth or expedience. Do you not agree with that?

President Bush was authorized by Congress to go to war with Iraq and by the Constitution of the USA. It's just that Liberals do not have to stand by their principles or values because in there way of thinking truth is ever changing. So when the going gets tough it is easy for the Liberals to back out of their commitment and blame Bush. Liberals committed to the war effort just like Bush. It is not patriotic to desert our soldiers in war just because you do not like the war. Therefore, to appear to be patriotic, Liberals falsely come up with this slogan that Bush lied. If Bush lied, so did a whole lot of Liberals.

Now, this is what makes sense not that gobbledygook stuff you copy out of a book and expect everybody to fall for your Liberal interpretation of facts.

Have a Wonderful Weekend

[wmrs2]

Let's see, here:
Communists deny people their rights and freedoms, correct?
Bush & Cheney, conservatives by anyone's measure, have also denied people their rights and freedoms, correct?
Liberal Democrats are trying to regain those rights and freedoms, are they not?

In Communist countries, you are either a good, loyal Communist or you are a traitor. There's no middle ground, right?
According to the local conservative mouthpiece here, if you don't support the government, in the form of Bush & Cheney, you are a terrorist and a traitor.

Damn! It sounds to me like Conservatives have more in common with Communists than the Liberals do! Right?

It is clear that you are a Liberal. It is not clear that you understand how a Liberal thinks. A Liberal does not have to be a Communist but the similarity is how they both think. Do you really know the difference or are you just angry?
A true Liberal should be proud of his logical process as opposed to the Conservative way of thinking.

In your rebuff to me, you use both types of logic. That is one reason it is so difficult to understand Liberals in America, they intermingle both Aristotelean logic with Hegelian logic. That may be why we do not communicate well with each other.

Aristotle's logic is based on premises that do not change. When you say:"Communists deny people their rights and freedoms, correct?" you fail to take into account Communist do not deny rights and freedoms to people. The rights and freedoms simply grow into something different to meet what is good for a Communist society. Your premise is Conservative enough but your reasoning on the premise is too Liberal for me in that it requires a Hegelian conclusion.

In an attempt to follow along with Aristotelean logic you say,"Liberal Democrats are trying to regain those rights and freedoms, are they not?" According to Liberals, rights and freedoms are relative, change, and can never be restored because these have evolved or grown into a new thesis by a process of logic.

In a Communist country you are not either good or bad. The question is, do you follow the parties dialectic process. By your own logic, you should not be saying that you want to take your country back but rather that you want to change the way traditional and patriotic Americans think. That is what you really mean and that is what makes you a Liberal.

No insult intended here but you do not appear to understand who you really are as a political theorist. For example, if you were a Liberal on the Supreme Court, you would believe that the Constitution was a living thing, that it changed with time, and what values were true in 1776 was not necessarily true today. However, if you were a strict constructionist or conservative on the Court, you would believe that freedom of speech was the same today as yesterday.

Let's take this a step more. The Liberals say the conservative radio host should not be allowed freedom to say anything they want to the American people and credit the conservatives for pulling the rug out from under the Liberal Democratic Congress in the immigrant policy. That's how their logic works to limit freedom of speech. To be continued.

[mkemse]

It is clear that you are a Liberal. It is not clear that you understand how a Liberal thinks. A Liberal does not have to be a Communist but the similarity is how they both think. Do you really know the difference or are you just angry?
A true Liberal should be proud of his logical process as opposed to the Conservative way of thinking.

In your rebuff to me, you use both types of logic. That is one reason it is so difficult to understand Liberals in America, they intermingle both Aristotelean logic with Hegelian logic. That may be why we do not communicate well with each other.

Aristotle's logic is based on premises that do not change. When you say:"Communists deny people their rights and freedoms, correct?" you fail to take into account Communist do not deny rights and freedoms to people. The rights and freedoms simply grow into something different to meet what is good for a Communist society. Your premise is Conservative enough but your reasoning on the premise is too Liberal for me in that it requires a Hegelian conclusion.

In an attempt to follow along with Aristotelean logic you say,"Liberal Democrats are trying to regain those rights and freedoms, are they not?" According to Liberals, rights and freedoms are relative, change, and can never be restored because these have evolved or grown into a new thesis by a process of logic.

In a Communist country you are not either good or bad. The question is, do you follow the parties dialectic process. By your own logic, you should not be saying that you want to take your country back but rather that you want to change the way traditional and patriotic Americans think. That is what you really mean and that is what makes you a Liberal.

No insult intended here but you do not appear to understand who you really are as a political theorist. For example, if you were a Liberal on the Supreme Court, you would believe that the Constitution was a living thing, that it changed with time, and what values were true in 1776 was not necessarily true today. However, if you were a strict constructionist or conservative on the Court, you would believe that freedom of speech was the same today as yesterday.

Let's take this a step more. The Liberals say the conservative radio host should not be allowed freedom to say anything they want to the American people and credit the conservatives for pulling the rug out from under the Liberal Democratic Congress in the immigrant policy. That's how their logic works to limit freedom of speech. To be continued.

Please kindly list ALL Thing that Communists and LIberals have in common??
In Reality what things do they both 100% Agree on at all times??

[mkemse]

It is clear that you are a Liberal. It is not clear that you understand how a Liberal thinks. A Liberal does not have to be a Communist but the similarity is how they both think. Do you really know the difference or are you just angry?
A true Liberal should be proud of his logical process as opposed to the Conservative way of thinking.

In your rebuff to me, you use both types of logic. That is one reason it is so difficult to understand Liberals in America, they intermingle both Aristotelean logic with Hegelian logic. That may be why we do not communicate well with each other.

Aristotle's logic is based on premises that do not change. When you say:"Communists deny people their rights and freedoms, correct?" you fail to take into account Communist do not deny rights and freedoms to people. The rights and freedoms simply grow into something different to meet what is good for a Communist society. Your premise is Conservative enough but your reasoning on the premise is too Liberal for me in that it requires a Hegelian conclusion.

In an attempt to follow along with Aristotelean logic you say,"Liberal Democrats are trying to regain those rights and freedoms, are they not?" According to Liberals, rights and freedoms are relative, change, and can never be restored because these have evolved or grown into a new thesis by a process of logic.

In a Communist country you are not either good or bad. The question is, do you follow the parties dialectic process. By your own logic, you should not be saying that you want to take your country back but rather that you want to change the way traditional and patriotic Americans think. That is what you really mean and that is what makes you a Liberal.

No insult intended here but you do not appear to understand who you really are as a political theorist. For example, if you were a Liberal on the Supreme Court, you would believe that the Constitution was a living thing, that it changed with time, and what values were true in 1776 was not necessarily true today. However, if you were a strict constructionist or conservative on the Court, you would believe that freedom of speech was the same today as yesterday.

Let's take this a step more. The Liberals say the conservative radio host should not be allowed freedom to say anything they want to the American people and credit the conservatives for pulling the rug out from under the Liberal Democratic Congress in the immigrant policy. That's how their logic works to limit freedom of speech. To be continued.

I have never ever heard ANY LIbera in the Media or in Polticisl say that the Rush Limbough's ofthe wolrd should not be alllowed tospeak his mind, rhey may be afew fringe ones that do, but at the same time i have never hear a Conservative say that about LIberals, if this is so please document it it ike i have been i would love to see what LIberals have said that About Conservative Talk Show Hosts??
If you take Cuba, North Korea Russia, you tell me where in these countries, they have Freedom of Speach without Fear Of Arrest and Jail, where in these ountires do the peole who live there are FREE at any time time to move to another country of their choice,, To seek what ever job they want and DEMAND a living WAGE ect ect they do not most Cuban's live in squale Remember Tiananmen Square in 1989, those people where shut dwon by a commuints governement for objecting to human rights there or the lack there of, there is NO similaritiesbetween a Communist Country and a Free Country or Communism and Liberalism LIberals believe the complete oppsoite of what Communists do thr word FREEDOM does not excist in any chape or form in any communmist countryand if does please kinly document this to us
I want to see doucumentaion that Communsm offers the same basics in live this that Liberals allow and believe in, individual freedomd ect ect?? you can't document it because it dies not exist, if it did poeple in Cuba could come and go as they wish anywhere inthe worls, Tiananmen Square would never have hapened because the governement would have allowed them to excersize free speach whichthey do not have, freedom of assembly whic they do not have, freedonm to live where they want which they do not have
this is a reality ofthe Real World Communists and Communism allows their peole ZERO in Freedom ect ect

[mkemse]

And please offer actualy documentation as I have, NOT theory Theory is NOT fact it is assumption

[mkemse]

Also a Friendly Reminder with all the ATTention to this THREAD

Remember everyone Daylight Savings Time Returns Saturday Night/Sunday morinig at 3am this is a reminder not a Politcal statement as to who made change, just a Reminder

[wmrs2]

Let's see, here:
Communists deny people their rights and freedoms, correct?
Bush & Cheney, conservatives by anyone's measure, have also denied people their rights and freedoms, correct?
Liberal Democrats are trying to regain those rights and freedoms, are they not?

In Communist countries, you are either a good, loyal Communist or you are a traitor. There's no middle ground, right?
According to the local conservative mouthpiece here, if you don't support the government, in the form of Bush & Cheney, you are a terrorist and a traitor.

Damn! It sounds to me like Conservatives have more in common with Communists than the Liberals do! Right?

Part II
Your first statement:"Communists deny people their rights and freedoms, correct?" The first phrase is a good premise but the answer to your question is not correct but is like the Communist logic and is not correct usage in cause and effect Aristotelean logic.

Your next statement: "Bush & Cheney, conservatives by anyone's measure, have also denied people their rights and freedoms, correct?" One is not a Conservative or Liberal based on any measure but rather on how one thinks. So, your answer should not be correct but false. are you beginning to see how you mix and misuse the two types of logic?

Your next statement"According to the local conservative mouthpiece here, if you don't support the government, in the form of Bush & Cheney, you are a terrorist and a traitor." I suppose you meant the term local conservative mouthpiecewith respect and affection in accordance with the rules of a Liberal ethical debate. At least you did not use the F word. Again, being a traitor is based on how you think in arriving at your conclusions. That is one reason that I am careful about calling someone a traitor. If they come up with this conclusion from Aristotelean reasoning than I am alright with it.

Your last statement: "Damn! It sounds to me like Conservatives have more in common with Communists than the Liberals do! Right?" Here, you completely avoid any use of your premises and completely lose yourself in the dialectic and Communist, very emotional, and completely following the party line. Right? See your conclusion does not make sense. From now on it would be best for you to stick to one line of reasoning.

[John56{vg}]

Wow.

The conservative water carrier follows all the tenets of his ilk by not supporting ANY of supposed facts, acting superior, patronizing and obfuscating any points made by his detractors, and by playing word play games.

Just like Bush trying to change the definition of torture and sticking to his guns despite tons of proof to the contrary.

Please Mr. wmrs, instead of patronizing and feeling superior to eveyone, please support your statements with any facts you may have.

Please?

:-)

[John56{vg}]

Part II
Your first statement:"Communists deny people their rights and freedoms, correct?" The first phrase is a good premise but the answer to your question is not correct but is like the Communist logic and is not correct usage in cause and effect Aristotelean logic.

Your next statement: "Bush & Cheney, conservatives by anyone's measure, have also denied people their rights and freedoms, correct?" One is not a Conservative or Liberal based on any measure but rather on how one thinks. So, your answer should not be correct but false. are you beginning to see how you mix and misuse the two types of logic?

Your next statement"According to the local conservative mouthpiece here, if you don't support the government, in the form of Bush & Cheney, you are a terrorist and a traitor." I suppose you meant the term local conservative mouthpiecewith respect and affection in accordance with the rules of a Liberal ethical debate. At least you did not use the F word. Again, being a traitor is based on how you think in arriving at your conclusions. That is one reason that I am careful about calling someone a traitor. If they come up with this conclusion from Aristotelean reasoning than I am alright with it.

Your last statement: "Damn! It sounds to me like Conservatives have more in common with Communists than the Liberals do! Right?" Here, you completely avoid any use of your premises and completely lose yourself in the dialectic and Communist, very emotional, and completely following the party line. Right? See your conclusion does not make sense. From now on it would be best for you to stick to one line of reasoning.


Sorry but this is just wordplay and obfuscation. If you have any facts to support your bogus arguments please use them.

If not it is just the same old ploys of all conservative watercarriers. being superior and patronizing without any support at all.

You CANNOT dispute the facts that dictatorships like communism in practice always becomes in the real world is more akin to the tactics of Geroge W. Bush and The devil himself, Dick Cheney, than in the tactics of true liberals.

So you have to use the gobbleydegook of picking apart the argument on some obscure and unintelligible logic argument.

Do you happen to HAVE any facts to support your bogus claims?

Please share them if you do.

[Thorne]

President Bush was authorized by Congress to go to war with Iraq and by the Constitution of the USA.

That's all well and good, really, but the war ended with the surrender of the last remnants of the Iraqi military and the capture, and eventual execution, of Saddam Hussein. So why are our soldiers still there? What's happening in Iraq now, and has been for years, is guerilla fighting and police work. Sure, the Iraqi police and army needed to be properly trained. That cannot be done in Iraq! They should have been brought over here, piecemeal, and trained, then sent back home to train more. The American soldiers are now standing in the middle of a virtual civil war, a war which they cannot possibly win without obliterating a large portion of the population.

No, the only reason we are still there is because of the oil. If there were no oil in Iraq it's doubtful we would ever have invaded, and once we had it's doubtful we would have remained there once the Iraqi military was destroyed.

[wmrs2]

Please kindly list ALL Thing that Communists and LIberals have in common??
In Reality what things do they both 100% Agree on at all times??

That is an excellent request. We intend to do that as this debate hopefully continues. Follow along and we will do do that. The first on the list is that they both use a flawed system of logic.

Second, moral and ethical values change, which is not true for the Conservative political theorist.

JFK expressed a conservative point when he said "Ask not. . . .but rather what you can do for your country."

More will follow for sure. I have already given several examples that have been ignored such as Dan Rather and Obama telling lies in order to tell a greater truth.

[wmrs2]

That's all well and good, really, but the war ended with the surrender of the last remnants of the Iraqi military and the capture, and eventual execution, of Saddam Hussein. So why are our soldiers still there? What's happening in Iraq now, and has been for years, is guerilla fighting and police work. Sure, the Iraqi police and army needed to be properly trained. That cannot be done in Iraq! They should have been brought over here, piecemeal, and trained, then sent back home to train more. The American soldiers are now standing in the middle of a virtual civil war, a war which they cannot possibly win without obliterating a large portion of the population.

No, the only reason we are still there is because of the oil. If there were no oil in Iraq it's doubtful we would ever have invaded, and once we had it's doubtful we would have remained there once the Iraqi military was destroyed.

Much of you say here, I agree. However, the surge is working and we may be able to do what you think should be done before too long. The Iraq government need to improve and hopefully is, We'll see. In the meantime Obama said on CNN news that if Al Quadia established a stronghold in Iraq that he would send the troops back in. So, who knows what will happen with the war.

As for the oil, I have not seen any of it yet. With gas prices as they are, I wish George would send it on over, if he is going to. Iraq should pay us back with oil, at least that much, since you can not put a price on our soldiers or freedom. We agree on this much and that's good.

[Thorne]

Part II
Your first statement:"Communists deny people their rights and freedoms, correct?" The first phrase is a good premise but the answer to your question is not correct but is like the Communist logic and is not correct usage in cause and effect Aristotelean logic.
I suggest you look into the actions of Communist leaders and governments around the world. There are very few Communist countries which allow their citizens the right to travel freely. If they did, they would soon run out of people! The COMMUNISTS in Germany built the Iron Curtain not to keep people OUT but to keep them IN! Sounds like a denial of freedom to me, logically speaking.


Your next statement: "Bush & Cheney, conservatives by anyone's measure, have also denied people their rights and freedoms, correct?" One is not a Conservative or Liberal based on any measure but rather on how one thinks. So, your answer should not be correct but false. are you beginning to see how you mix and misuse the two types of logic?
I can't help but notice that, instead of refuting my statement that they have denied people their rights and freedoms, you focus instead on some obscure notion of logic. The PATRIOT Act, promulgated by Bush and the Republican party, restricts the rights of the American people. There are foreign nationals, suspected of being combatants or terrorists, being held in military prisons without due process or legal counsel. If they ARE enemy combatants they should be held in POW camps and be treated according to the Geneva Convention. It they are terrorists they should be tried and, if convicted, sentenced. Anything else is denying them their basic human rights. So Bush and Cheney must be considered to be denying these rights, not only to foreign nationals but to their own people.


I suppose you meant the term local conservative mouthpiecewith respect and affection in accordance with the rules of a Liberal ethical debate.
No, actually I was being sarcastic, as I'm sure you assumed. Perhaps it's a Conservative ethical debate.


Your last statement: "Damn! It sounds to me like Conservatives have more in common with Communists than the Liberals do! Right?" Here, you completely avoid any use of your premises and completely lose yourself in the dialectic and Communist, very emotional, and completely following the party line. Right? See your conclusion does not make sense. From now on it would be best for you to stick to one line of reasoning.
Actually, based upon your statements, the only logical conclusion I can come up with is that anyone who disagrees with your logic must, by your definition, be thinking illogically. I think we could use a Vulcan or two to untangle this web of logic.

[John56{vg}]

You are expressing nothing but your own opinion wmrs.

I asked if you have any facts to back up your assertions. And even IF what you say is true, which I deny, Just having flawed systems of logic do not a comparison make. Many things are asserted on faith or on very flawed logic, doesn't make those two things alike.

And IF we are talking lies here, Bush and company have changed positions when the feeling suited them, MANY times during their administration. And LIES, I mean their all administration is based on lies or ommission or commission and of simply changing the meaning of words like torture and terrorism.

So I dispute your claim that the conservative theorist does not change position.

And I am still waiting for some sort of support for these spurious claims. I have seen none.

[wmrs2]

I have never ever heard ANY LIbera in the Media or in Polticisl say that the Rush Limbough's ofthe wolrd should not be alllowed tospeak his mind, rhey may be afew fringe ones that do, but at the same time i have never hear a Conservative say that about LIberals, if this is so please document it it ike i have been i would love to see what LIberals have said that About Conservative Talk Show Hosts??
If you take Cuba, North Korea Russia, you tell me where in these countries, they have Freedom of Speach without Fear Of Arrest and Jail, where in these ountires do the peole who live there are FREE at any time time to move to another country of their choice,, To seek what ever job they want and DEMAND a living WAGE ect ect they do not most Cuban's live in squale Remember Tiananmen Square in 1989, those people where shut dwon by a commuints governement for objecting to human rights there or the lack there of, there is NO similaritiesbetween a Communist Country and a Free Country or Communism and Liberalism LIberals believe the complete oppsoite of what Communists do thr word FREEDOM does not excist in any chape or form in any communmist countryand if does please kinly document this to us
I want to see doucumentaion that Communsm offers the same basics in live this that Liberals allow and believe in, individual freedomd ect ect?? you can't document it because it dies not exist, if it did poeple in Cuba could come and go as they wish anywhere inthe worls, Tiananmen Square would never have hapened because the governement would have allowed them to excersize free speach whichthey do not have, freedom of assembly whic they do not have, freedonm to live where they want which they do not have
this is a reality ofthe Real World Communists and Communism allows their peole ZERO in Freedom ect ect

Please use spell check on your CP and throw in a few , ; . and caps. It is difficult to respond to the above level of sophistication. I know you can do better.

It is not my argument that Russia, N. Korea, Cuba and China have all these freedoms to which you speak. You may have heard from all these Hollywood Liberals who visit these Communist countries and praise them to high heaven. Maybe it came from a Liberal who went ashore one of these countries to criticize the President.

I am not going to send you a reading list of sources so you can be more confused than you already are. You have an excellent list with your own sources that you should be able to learn anything you need to learn. It's not a list of sources you need. It is an improved system of logic. Google on some of the terms I give you, if you want the joy of learning. You need that more than the joy of debate.:wave:

[wmrs2]

Wow.

The conservative water carrier follows all the tenets of his ilk by not supporting ANY of supposed facts, acting superior, patronizing and obfuscating any points made by his detractors, and by playing word play games.

Just like Bush trying to change the definition of torture and sticking to his guns despite tons of proof to the contrary.

Please Mr. wmrs, instead of patronizing and feeling superior to eveyone, please support your statements with any facts you may have.

Please?

:-)

You don't appear to want facts. Looks like you need somebody to insult, especially if it is a person who happens to respect the President of the USA. If it is facts you want, Google on the terms I have used and read them yourself. Any thing I would give you, you would use it to insult me. It is the philosophy of the Liberal that says truth is relative, changes, and rejects the traditional American code of ethics.

I don't care if you doubt what I claim to be truth or not. Please do your own thinking instead of following the Party line. While your at it, see if you can justify to yourself those terrible things you say about the President which things are proof that you think the laws of respect and honor change. Arguments you expect others to respond to with facts and resources are all around you and you can not see them. For one, read the Constitution of the USA where many of the self evident, eternal, and unchanging truths are listed. Then understand that the USA is a country of law not something that changes to meet the lust and desires of Liberal Democrats that hate Bush.

[wmrs2]

You are expressing nothing but your own opinion wmrs.

I asked if you have any facts to back up your assertions. And even IF what you say is true, which I deny, Just having flawed systems of logic do not a comparison make. Many things are asserted on faith or on very flawed logic, doesn't make those two things alike.

And IF we are talking lies here, Bush and company have changed positions when the feeling suited them, MANY times during their administration. And LIES, I mean their all administration is based on lies or ommission or commission and of simply changing the meaning of words like torture and terrorism.

So I dispute your claim that the conservative theorist does not change position.

And I am still waiting for some sort of support for these spurious claims. I have seen none.

More facts will not help you read and comprehend better. You can not reply to what we have provided you. How are you going to handle more facts, self evident facts which are listed in the Constitution of the USA. Argue with the Constitution if you think I am too superior to you. ...... I did not read anywhere in the threads any person said the conservative did not change positions. There is no sin in changing positions but truth does not change to meet your position. See, that simple self evident fact has missed you comprehension so you attack me because of your limited ability to think. No! You don't need more facts. You need a better system of logic.

[John56{vg}]

that's anothing thing common to the neo-con apologists. Insulting everybody then complaining that THEY are the wrong ones.

I understand from your comments you do not have any back-up for your claims.

So be it. debate over I guess.

I assure you my reading comprehension is quite high. And at least I spell everything correctly. IT is Cheney not Chaney my friend.

[mkemse]

That is an excellent request. We intend to do that as this debate hopefully continues. Follow along and we will do do that. The first on the list is that they both use a flawed system of logic.

Second, moral and ethical values change, which is not true for the Conservative political theorist.

JFK expressed a conservative point when he said "Ask not. . . .but rather what you can do for your country."

More will follow for sure. I have already given several examples that have been ignored such as Dan Rather and Obama telling lies in order to tell a greater truth.
What Lies did Obama tell, JFK WOW 1 Conservative thought, was conservative using 1 thought, oh please
i have made it a poit to givedetailedreplies as you haverequested i wouls apprciatedthe same doumentation when reply and not overtime, did not do mine over time
Dan Rather I do not care for at his p;ottics have nothin to dowith it just no a big fan of that Netwrk, i preffer to watc hte most LIBERAL News Station on EARTH FOX, with Bill O'Riey or even CNN with Glen Beck 2 WONDERFULL political any;syt, nobody is better the O'Riely

[mkemse]

Please use spell check on your CP and throw in a few , ; . and caps. It is difficult to respond to the above level of sophistication. I know you can do better.

It is not my argument that Russia, N. Korea, Cuba and China have all these freedoms to which you speak. You may have heard from all these Hollywood Liberals who visit these Communist countries and praise them to high heaven. Maybe it came from a Liberal who went ashore one of these countries to criticize the President.

I am not going to send you a reading list of sources so you can be more confused than you already are. You have an excellent list with your own sources that you should be able to learn anything you need to learn. It's not a list of sources you need. It is an improved system of logic. Google on some of the terms I give you, if you want the joy of learning. You need that more than the joy of debate.:wave:

Please feel free tocontinue your meaning less debate without documentation as has been provider earlier,you provide replies without any facts like others have provided, I no longer wish to participate in a debate where my doumentation is questioned and yet I am provided with no doumentation to support other claims
odocumention to support yourself and not personsl feelings, I at least provider documentation you do not have to agreew with it which you do not, but it is at least provided

FINI !!!???


thank you

[mkemse]

one last question, if the Repulican Party is a Conservativre and Non LIberal as you point out, why did they nominae John MCcain as their Candidate over far more conservative Mike Huckee or Mitt Romeny, this is not a decsion Democrats have anything to do with people in prmaries have to vote for the party them are registetrded wiih in 98% of the states, so why give "Liberal" Mccain the nomination and not Huckabee or Romey, McCain can't even get the support so far of Chrisitan Conservatives yet he has all but won the nomination, only thing missing in the fnality of itat their convention


even Limbough said he would not support MCcain, my question is why did the Conservative Repulbiacn Party Noninate McCAin and not Huckbee or Romey the Democrats have NOTHING to do with the Repunican nomiee and more then Republican have any say in The Democrtic Primaries, the Republicans also could have choosen Mitt Romey or Mike Hunckabee far more conservative the Mccain but did not
Byr under Law if you are registered as a Democrat you have to vote that way and a a Repulban thesame you can't jump party line in 99% of the Primaries

[mkemse]

If MCCain was noimnated as the best chance to beat clinton or Obamam that show that this country is not as Conservatives as people say, as liberal as Clinton and Obmam are, ifthis country is very conservatice then Obmam abd Clinton should be NONE issues to the American Voter, if they are issues tothe Repulican Party, maybe the Repubicansare not as conservative as the Punlic feels they are
Rmember you have to delclare you Partyto vote in 99% ofthe Primaroes so Democrats CANOT vote for Repul;bican Canddidtaes thus they elected MCcain over ht other because they feel thretened at the chance of "Liberals" Obmam or Clinton wiining in November, if this is not so why then McCain??

[mkemse]

So Much For Jonn MCain wanting to NOT off shorework and keep americans working and keep Amiercna Jobs American

This is Date March 8 2008 Yahoo news

WASHINGTON - Angry Boeing supporters are vowing revenge against Republican presidential candidate John McCain over Chicago-based Boeing's loss of a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract to the parent company of European plane maker Airbus.

There are other targets for their ire — the Air Force, the defense secretary and even the entire Bush administration.

But Boeing supporters in Congress are directing their wrath at McCain, the Arizona senator and nominee in waiting, for scuttling an earlier deal that would have let Boeing build the next generation of Air Force refueling tankers. Boeing now will miss out on a deal that it says would have supported 44,000 new and existing jobs at the company and suppliers in 40 states.

"I hope the voters of this state remember what John McCain has done to them and their jobs," said Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., whose state would have been home to the tanker program and gained about 9,000 jobs.

"Having made sure that Iraq gets new schools, roads, bridges and dams that we deny America, now we are making sure that France gets the jobs that Americans used to have," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill. "We are sending the jobs overseas, all because John McCain demanded it."

Even Boeing's Republican supporters are critical of McCain.

"John McCain will be the nominee and I will support him, but if John McCain believes that Airbus or EADS is the company for our Air Force tanker program he's flat-out wrong — and I'll tell him that to his face," said Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash.

Rep. Todd Tiahrt, a Kansas Republican whose district includes a Boeing plant that could have gained hundreds of new jobs from the tanker program, said McCain's role in killing the earlier deal is likely to become an election issue. Both of the leading Democratic candidates for president, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have criticized the Air Force decision.

"I think we absolutely will hear more about it," Tiahrt said. "We'll hear it mostly from the Democrats and they have every right to be concerned."

Just another example of Republicans helping Americans find jobs, and creating Jobs in the United States and not offshoring them, this is NOT a DEMOCRATIC MOVE this was a John Mccain demand and move, rather the supporting Boeing a US Based Company the maker of these tanker since 1957, instead we are sending all these jobs to France bt the year 2012 the conratc to Eurobus wil increase to a value of over $100 billlion dollars, just more jobs lost to Americans during a Repubilcan Adm.

This NOT Liberal Bias on a Story this is fact, you can't blame the Liberal Democrats for this, the Air Force under Bush made this Decision not the Democrats not the Repubicans, the decsion was left soley up to the Air Force whose Commander and Chief is George W Bush
The Air Force said that they made this decsion because labor costs are cheaper overseas, so apparently lower labor costs are more important to the Air Force then keeping American Jobs in America, and this is OUR government talking not a retail corprotation selling Blue Jeans or TV's
How Patriotic of the Air Force

BTW in Feb of this year (2008) America lost 63,000 more jobs the biggest single monthly loss of jobs in the United States since 2002. and all under the Bush Adiminstration watch

[Thorne]

Please do your own thinking instead of following the Party line.
Might I suggest you do the same? I have heard nothing from you EXCEPT the party line.

[mkemse]

It is clear that you are a Liberal. It is not clear that you understand how a Liberal thinks. A Liberal does not have to be a Communist but the similarity is how they both think. Do you really know the difference or are you just angry?
A true Liberal should be proud of his logical process as opposed to the Conservative way of thinking.

In your rebuff to me, you use both types of logic. That is one reason it is so difficult to understand Liberals in America, they intermingle both Aristotelean logic with Hegelian logic. That may be why we do not communicate well with each other.

Aristotle's logic is based on premises that do not change. When you say:"Communists deny people their rights and freedoms, correct?" you fail to take into account Communist do not deny rights and freedoms to people. The rights and freedoms simply grow into something different to meet what is good for a Communist society. Your premise is Conservative enough but your reasoning on the premise is too Liberal for me in that it requires a Hegelian conclusion.

In an attempt to follow along with Aristotelean logic you say,"Liberal Democrats are trying to regain those rights and freedoms, are they not?" According to Liberals, rights and freedoms are relative, change, and can never be restored because these have evolved or grown into a new thesis by a process of logic.

In a Communist country you are not either good or bad. The question is, do you follow the parties dialectic process. By your own logic, you should not be saying that you want to take your country back but rather that you want to change the way traditional and patriotic Americans think. That is what you really mean and that is what makes you a Liberal.

No insult intended here but you do not appear to understand who you really are as a political theorist. For example, if you were a Liberal on the Supreme Court, you would believe that the Constitution was a living thing, that it changed with time, and what values were true in 1776 was not necessarily true today. However, if you were a strict constructionist or conservative on the Court, you would believe that freedom of speech was the same today as yesterday.

Let's take this a step more. The Liberals say the conservative radio host should not be allowed freedom to say anything they want to the American people and credit the conservatives for pulling the rug out from under the Liberal Democratic Congress in the immigrant policy. That's how their logic works to limit freedom of speech. To be continued.


Why is it that everything that you have posted is Aristotelean logic, or HIS THEORIES and everything else POSTED is FACT??

The Definition of THEORY is OPINION
In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.


The Definition of FACT is:
Generally, a fact is defined as something that is the case, something that actually exists, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation.[1][2] There is a range of other uses, depending on the context. Often a fact will be claimed in argument under the implied authority of a specific pedagogy, such as scientific facts or historical facts. Dispute may arise in defining the standard upon which the authority of the fact rests. Confounding this, Rhetorical use of the term often does not disclose from where the authority originates

A FACT is somethingthat ACTUALY HAPPENED

YOU ARE Caomapring Your Theorires Or Opinions With FACTS that I have posted 2 different animals

A FAct is: WE HAVE A PRRESEDENT, a THEORY IS WE COULD HAVE A WOMAN PRESIDENT, 1 isA reality or Fact, WEDO A FACT HAVE A PRESIDENT, In OPINION WE could have a Female mone the other is an opinion

You are Comparing what HAS HAPPENED to WHAT COULD HAPPEN, or THEORY which is simply an OPNION and OPIONON is NOT FACT it is ASSUMPTION

Fact If you live in Florida you have summer weather all year long, Theory or Opnion, if you live in Florida is it possible to haver a snow storm one day based on a chnaged in Atmospheric conditions, again one is a fact one is a Theory or opinion 2 different animals

And LOGIC is a Thought or Idea not Necessarily a FACT

LOGIC: if it is 32 degress outside it may rain outside dur to the temperature Fact it will probably snow because it is cold FACT & LOgic are also 2 entirely different concepts

One is assumption one is FACT assumptions are not always true FACTS are be they good ro not fact are true and doocymented Assuptions came only be made not proven facts can be proved and documented

[wmrs2]

that's anothing thing common to the neo-con apologists. Insulting everybody then complaining that THEY are the wrong ones.

I understand from your comments you do not have any back-up for your claims.

So be it. debate over I guess.

I assure you my reading comprehension is quite high. And at least I spell everything correctly. IT is Cheney not Chaney my friend.

Yes, I have always been a poor speller. That's why I use spell check but then I still seem to miss spell a few words. No one is perfect and few have perfect reasoning. The only one that I can think of is Jesus Christ.

The word anything is spelled "anothing" and "neo" is miss spelled according to my spell check or maybe it is how you use it. On the spell check Cheney is a miss spelling and Chaney is cited as correct spelling. Anyway, a lot of words would slip by me as being spelled correctly without my spell check. However, this makes you statement, "And at least I spell everything correctly" look sort of careless.

In your reply to me you failed to capitalize "that's" but I know you knew better, it was a simple mistake, not a lack of intelligence. I have made that mistake myself, so it would be unfair of me to tell you that at least I always used perfect grammar. I think it would also be rude. What do you think about it my friend?

[mkemse]

Yes, I have always been a poor speller. That's why I use spell check but then I still seem to miss spell a few words. No one is perfect and few have perfect reasoning. The only one that I can think of is Jesus Christ.

The word anything is spelled "anothing" and "neo" is miss spelled according to my spell check or maybe it is how you use it. On the spell check Cheney is a miss spelling and Chaney is cited as correct spelling. Anyway, a lot of words would slip by me as being spelled correctly without my spell check. However, this makes you statement, "And at least I spell everything correctly" look sort of careless.

In your reply to me you failed to capitalize "that's" but I know you knew better, it was a simple mistake, not a lack of intelligence. I have made that mistake myself, so it would be unfair of me to tell you that at least I always used perfect grammar. I think it would also be rude. What do you think about it my friend?


I learned sometime back that spell check is NOT 100% correct, so i would say let's not blame anyone, it simply is not worth the debate every post i have ever read and even stories on this site all have miss spelled words it is called human error and we are all humans, and i do the best i can i suffer for dyslexia so i have no faith in spell check at all yes many of my words are mispelled i will admit to that, but i at least try to get my point acorss at the expenses of embarasing myslef, i certainly hope that is the least issue i have to deal with the rest of my life it surebeats long and

[wmrs2]

John56 is worried also that I do not have a backup for may claims. In America a public education is provided for all citizens, in theory at least. Much of what we talk about is considered common knowledge, such as we all know it is a fact that George Washington was our first president. I can not tell you what book this common knowledge came from, yet, commonly educated people have no problem with accepting this fact when I present it as such. However, in a history class, a strange behaving student argued that Benjamin Franklin was the first president. That caused an argument and, in that case, the teacher asked this strange behaving person to provide documentation to back up his theory. He did. The teacher disagreed but acknowledged there was some truth or facts to backup his belief that Ben was the first president. A few facts, however, do not make an acceptable theory; all we students went on believing that G. W. was the first president.

I don't need to respond to everything with documentation for you to understand the truth about most common things in American history. We Americans have a public, common education. We know common facts. Having gone through the 8th grade in school, there is nothing that has been in this debate that you should not understand from an 8th grade education level. If there are words and terms that you do not understand, Google it.

By the way, Liberals in politics is a relative new animal. It has been a long time ago but I don't remember my 8th grade teacher mentioning Liberal as an American political term. The first time I really noticed Liberals was in the election of 1968. All I know is that the Liberals did not want to be called Liberal. For some reason those who were branded as Liberals were quickly beaten. It seemed that most people thought Liberals were Communist sympathizers.

Today most of the vocal Democrats are Liberals and make no bones about it. I never have had a Liberal tell me what they believe that makes them a Liberal. Maybe you can tell me philosophically what a Liberal Democrat is. Do Liberals have a strange logic that puts them at odds with our national history? If so,explain it to me. I am listening and I promise not to require a long list of sources. If I disagree on a point, I will Google for my self. If you are a certain mindset, say so. What are the advantages of being a Liberal? Does being a Liberal make you more patriotic or does it have anything to do with that?

By the way, you ought to do yourself a favor and read a little more about theories. You will learn that a theory is many things depending on whether you are working in science, history, physics, sociology, medicine or just normal every occurrences. Coming from various theories are laws. Evolution is probably the most talked about theory in America. It is really important to theories in medicine but not so important to theories in politics. Some theories are so well accepted that they become laws, such as the law of gravity. We depend on this law very much every time we get up to go to work. We do not take time to document each time we leave home.

[mkemse]

John56 is worried also that I do not have a backup for may claims. In America a public education is provided for all citizens, in theory at least. Much of what we talk about is considered common knowledge, such as we all know it is a fact that George Washington was our first president. I can not tell you what book this common knowledge came from, yet, commonly educated people have no problem with accepting this fact when I present it as such. However, in a history class, a strange behaving student argued that Benjamin Franklin was the first president. That caused an argument and, in that case, the teacher asked this strange behaving person to provide documentation to back up his theory. He did. The teacher disagreed but acknowledged there was some truth or facts to backup his belief that Ben was the first president. A few facts, however, do not make an acceptable theory; all we students went on believing that G. W. was the first president.

I don't need to respond to everything with documentation for you to understand the truth about most common things in American history. We Americans have a public, common education. We know common facts. Having gone through the 8th grade in school, there is nothing that has been in this debate that you should not understand from an 8th grade education level. If there are words and terms that you do not understand, Google it.

By the way, Liberals in politics is a relative new animal. It has been a long time ago but I don't remember my 8th grade teacher mentioning Liberal as an American political term. The first time I really noticed Liberals was in the election of 1968. All I know is that the Liberals did not want to be called Liberal. For some reason those who were branded as Liberals were quickly beaten. It seemed that most people thought Liberals were Communist sympathizers.

Today most of the vocal Democrats are Liberals and make no bones about it. I never have had a Liberal tell me what they believe that makes them a Liberal. Maybe you can tell me philosophically what a Liberal Democrat is. Do Liberals have a strange logic that puts them at odds with our national history? If so,explain it to me. I am listening and I promise not to require a long list of sources. If I disagree on a point, I will Google for my self. If you are a certain mindset, say so. What are the advantages of being a Liberal? Does being a Liberal make you more patriotic or does it have anything to do with that?

By the way, you ought to do yourself a favor and read a little more about theories. You will learn that a theory is many things depending on whether you are working in science, history, physics, sociology, medicine or just normal every occurrences. Coming from various theories are laws. Evolution is probably the most talked about theory in America. It is really important to theories in medicine but not so important to theories in politics. Some theories are so well accepted that they become laws, such as the law of gravity. We depend on this law very much every time we get up to go to work. We do not take time to document each time we leave home.

I already posted a very clear defination of Theory, a theory is an Assumption or Opinion it is NOT based on fact
Theories in medication are "It SHOULD Work" but no facts as of yet to prove they do most medication out are tiral Medicine as a Science Is not exact, i have eben toldthis by doctors and phramacists, if it where exact all medications prescribed would do as they are intendedm have you ever had a docotor say to you "Let's Try this, if it does not work, we will try someting else" i have seen nothing wtiten saying Science is exact if you have again please post proff, i do notr want THEORIES, Assumption, i want facts like i have posted
I live outside chicago my Theory is by June it will be around 70-80 degreee here during the day, that is a theory, an assumption, it will not be fact til it actualy happens

[wmrs2]

I learned sometime back that spell check is NOT 100% correct, so i would say let's not blame anyone, it simply is not worth the debate every post i have ever read and even stories on this site all have miss spelled words it is called human error and we are all humans, and i do the best i can i suffer for dyslexia so i have no faith in spell check at all yes many of my words are mispelled i will admit to that, but i at least try to get my point acorss at the expenses of embarasing myslef, i certainly hope that is the least issue i have to deal with the rest of my life it surebeats long and

mkemse, I always want to be polite to you. But you have gone to far here in making excuses for your short comings. I am painfully aware that spell check is not 100% correct but is still much better than you or I spell. You do not do the best you can or you would use spell check and grammar check if it is on you CP. You can hardly read what you write because you do not honor any of the laws of grammar.

I know you can do better because I have read some things you have written and these have been excellent. The kind of mistakes you make are not due to dyslexia but carelessness.

A friend asking you to try harder. :wave:

[mkemse]

BREAKING NEWS WMRS2,

I live outisde Chicago,Former Speaker ofthe House Dennis Hastert who I assume you have heard of, retired recently and tonight was a run off for his seat, the had a run off election tonight in the 14th Congressional District In Illinos, to replace Hastered, as very stanch Repuiblcan and Die Hard Bush supporter, in this election those who voted did not have to delcare their affiliation since it was a run off
This Congressionl seat has been Repubilcan since 1958, it is 75% Repubican, No Democrat has won their Since around 1958
In The Run off tonight it feautred LIBERAL DEMOCRAT Bill Foster vs. Jim Oberwies a staunch Repubican Pro Bush on everything,, they has 98% of the votes in from the 568 Distriect and for the 1st time since 1958 a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT won Dennis Hasterts seat, they did exist polls and found 70% of those who voted voted Democratic for the first time in Years or in thier life,when why they broke ranks and voted Democratic and Not Republican, they said "We can no longer Support President Bush or his failed Policies "

This is very remarkable for a Congressional District that for 50 was always Repubican and Democrats in the past even use to wrote it off because it is so heavy Republican, would you care to explain how this happened, that a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT beat out a CONSERVATIVE BUSH REPUILICAN IN A REPUBLICAN DISTRICT, another Bush Convervative Republican Losses Out To a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT in a conservative Republican District

THIS IS FACT NOT THEORY

[mkemse]

CHICAGO - A longtime Republican district fell to the Democrats Saturday when a scientist snatched former House Speaker Dennis Hastert's congressional seat in a closely watched special election.

Democrat Bill Foster won 52 percent of the vote compared to 48 percent for Republican Jim Oberweis. With 564 of 568 precincts reporting, Foster had 50,947 votes to Oberweis' 46,125.

Foster's special election win means he will fill the remainder of Hastert's term, which ends in January. The two will square off again in November, for a new, full term.

The 66-year-old Hastert, who lost his powerful post as speaker when Democrats took control of Congress, resigned late last year.

The race between Foster and Oberweis spawned a contentious campaign that saw both men turn to high-profile supporters to help sway voters in the longtime GOP district.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama made a TV ad praising Foster; Oberweis had fundraising help from the apparent Republican nominee, John McCain, and Hastert's backing.

"It is a stunning rejection of the Bush Administration, its Republican allies, and presidential nominee John McCain," said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen in a statement.

The district will have a rookie congressmen after years of enjoying Hastert's clout.

During his 21 years in Washington, Hastert funneled millions of dollars to the district that stretches from Chicago's far western suburbs to almost the Mississippi River.

Hastert's is one of three open seats in Illinois this year because of GOP retirements.

Reps. Jerry Weller, who represents a district from the suburban sprawl south of Chicago to the farmland of central Illinois, and Ray LaHood of Peoria are also stepping down. Democrats' chances to pick up one of those seats improved when the Republican nominee to replace Weller dropped out of the race.

Besides poking at each other with negative TV ads, Foster and Oberweis have clashed on issues from immigration and health care to the Iraq war.

During a recent TV appearance, Foster said he would be a "good vote in Congress to change President Bush's policy" on Iraq. Oberweis contended the troop surge there was working, saying: "Things are getting better in Iraq."

Oberweis also has blasted Foster for being a proponent of big government because Foster says he wants to move toward universal health care. Foster claims Oberweis' approach — he favors tax incentives to help people buy their own insurance — only works for people who are "healthy and wealthy."

I REST MY CASE THIS IS FACT NOT THEORY

[John56{vg}]

Wmrs,

Your smug rudeness to anyone who disagrees with you and then then whining when you think you have been treated ruly is kinda funny, and, as THorne has stated, EXACTLY from the neo-con pundits' and apologists' playbook. YOU are the one spouting the party line.

The FACTS are that this president has done the most to damage the constitution of anyone in the history of the presidency. He has unilaterally ordained himself OUT of the system of Checks and Balances in the Constitution. He has eliminated the Writ of Habeas Corpus the law of the land for Hundreds of years in several countries.

He has instituted signing statements that completely counter the intent of the Congress' constitutionally given job of writing laws.

He is trying to make of himself a petty dictator. He has lied and continues to lie about everything under the sun.

His surge IS NOT working as planned. There are some areas of Iraq that are safer, but the country is still fighting an occupying force, the U.S.! American soldiers, wonderful men and women. are still dying for George Bush's war. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and Afghansistan is falling apart again, becasue Bush wants to fight a losing battle for oil in Iraq.

And you are insulting mkemse and Thorne and me and then whining when we respond to your STILL baseless claim.

Your ideas, which are NOT common knowledge and in fact are contrary to common knowledge, are still not based on ANYTHING but that you have sais them. And then said something about the fact that Liberalism and Communism is based on the same logic tstructure, sorry but this doesn NOT make senses.

If you CAN substantiate or explain your ideas without turning it on your detractors to do your work for you, maybe I could debate you. Without and with just smug observations and insults, I can do neither.

I am a journalist. I think, I research and I study history, unlike the neo-cons I don't rewrite history. I would like to respectfully ask you to give me SOMEATHING to work with. If you don't have that, which I have to conclude is the case, then no one can debate you. Which, I feel, is what you want. You don't want to be intelligently debated because you have NOTHING to support your positions.

[Alex Bragi]

Politics is always going to be a volatile topic. I'm not sure there's ever a right or wrong, or black and white, just differing opinions. It's all too often all too easy to say, or in this case post, something abrasive only later to wish you'd expressed your opinion differently.

Let's close this thread for 24 hours and take some time to cool off. Ok? :)