Bush Indictment in Vermont

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmrs2

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??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmrs2

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

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?

:-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmrs2

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmrs2

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkemse

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmrs2

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkemse

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

:-)

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmrs2

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmrs2

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

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

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??

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmrs2

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmrs2

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmrs2

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkemse

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:

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