Bush Indictment in Vermont

[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.

[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.

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[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??

[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.

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

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]

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]

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}]

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]

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.

[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.

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

[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

[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?