Arguing with libs, Uuuggggggg!

[logical4u]

Please list what 'libs' 'stand for'.

Finally, you admit your ignorance

I suggest you start here and here


Newsletter

• Locke Studies (formerly The Locke Newsletter), edited by Roland Hall, University of York, Heslington, York, UK <[email protected]>.

Selected Books

• Aarsleff, Hans, (1982) From Locke to Saussure: Essays on the Study of Language and Intellectual History, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press
• Alexander, Peter (1985) Ideas Qualities and Corpuscles, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Arneil, Barbara, (1996) John Locke and America, Oxford, Clarendon Press
• Aaron, Richard, (1937) John Locke, Oxford, Oxford University Press
• Ashcraft, Richard, (1986) Revolutionary Politics and Locke's Two Treatises of Civil Government, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
• Ayers, Michael (1991) Locke: Epistemology and Ontology, 2 volumes, London Routledge.
• Bennett, Jonathan, (1971) Locke, Berkeley, Hume: Central Themes, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Brandt, Reinhard, ed. (1981) John Locke: Symposium Wolfenbuttel 1979, Berlin, de Gruyter.
• Chappell, Vere (1992) Essays on Early Modern Philosophy, John ocke — Theory of Knowledge, London, Garland Publishing, Inc.
• Chappell, Vere (1994) The Cambridge Companion to Locke, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Dunn, John (1969) The Political Thought of John Locke, Cambridge University Press.
• Fox, Christopher, (1988) Locke and the Scriblerians, Berkeley, University of California Press.
• Gibson, James, (1968) Locke's Theory of Knowledge and its Historical Relations, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
• Grant, Ruth, (1987) John Locke's Liberalism, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
• Kroll, Peter; Ashcraft, Richard; Zagorin, Peter, (1992) Philosophy, Science and Religion in England 1640-1700, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Jolley, Nicholas, (1984) Leibniz and Locke, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Jolley, Nicholas, (1999) Locke, His Philosophical Thought, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Lott, Tommy, (1998) Subjugation and Bondage: Critical Essays on Slavery and Social Philosophy, New York, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc..
• Lowe, E.J., (1995) Locke on Human Understanding, London, Routledge Publishing Co..
• Mackie, J. L. (1976) Problems from Locke, Oxford, Clarendon Press
• Macpherson, C.B. (1962) The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Mandelbaum, Maurice, Philosophy, Science and Sense Perception: Historical and Critical Studies, Baltimore, The John Hopkins University Press.
• Martin, C. B. and D. M. Armstrong, eds. (1968) Locke and Berkeley: A Collection of Critical Essays, New York, Anchor Books.
• McLachlan, Hugh, (1941) Religious Opinions of Milton, Locke and Newton, Manchester, Manchester University Press.
• Mendus, Susan, (1991) Locke on Toleration in Focus, London, Routledge.
• Schouls, Peter, (1992) Reasoned Freedom: John Locke and the Enlightenment, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press
• Simmons, A. John, (1992) The Lockean Theory of Rights, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
• Tarcov, Nathan, (1984) Locke's Education for Liberty, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
• Tipton, I.C., (1977) Locke on Human Understanding: Selected Essays, Oxford, Oxford University Press
• Tully, James, (1980) A Discourse on Property, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
• Tully, James, (1993) An Approach to Political Philosophy: Locke in Contexts, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Uzgalis, William, (2007) Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding — A Reader's Guide, Continuum
• Wood, Neal, (1983) The Politics of Locke's Philosophy, Berkeley, University of California Press.
• Woolhouse, R.S., (1971) Locke's Philosophy of Science and Knowledge New York, Barnes and Noble.
• Woolhouse, R.S., (1983) Locke, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
• Woolhouse, R.S., (1988) The Empiricists, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Yaffe, Gideon, (2000) Liberty Worth the Name: Locke on Free Agency, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
• Yolton, Jean, (1990) A Locke Miscellany, Bristol, Thommes Antiquarian Books.
• Yolton, John, (1956) John Locke and the Way of Ideas Oxford, Oxford University Press, Thoemmes Press reprint 1996.
• Yolton, John (1969) John Locke: Problems and Perspectives, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Yolton, John (1970) John Locke and the Compass of Human Understanding Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
• Yolton, John (1984) Perceptual Acquaintance: From Descartes to Reid Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press
• Yolton, John (1984) Thinking Matter: Materialism in Eighteenth Century Britain, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press

Selected Articles

• Armitage, David, (2004) “John Locke, Carolina and the Two Treatises of Government,” Political Theory; 32: 602-27.
• Bernasconi, Robert, (1992)“Locke's Almost Random Talk of Man,” Perspectiven der Philosohpie 18: 293-318.
• Bolton, Martha, (S. 2004) “Locke on the semantic and epistemic role of simple ideas of sensation,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly; 85(3): 301-321.
• Chappell, Vere, (S. 2004) “Symposium: Locke and the Veil of Perception: Preface,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly; 85(3): 243-244.
• Chappell, Vere, (S. 2004) “Comments.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly; 85(3): 338-355.
• Lennon,Thomas, (S. 2004) “Through a Glass Darkly: More on Locke's Logic of Ideas,” Pacific PhilosophicalQuarterl: 85(3): 322-337.
• Newman, Lex, (S. 2004) “Locke on Sensitive Knowledge and the Veil of Perception—Four Misconceptions,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly; 85(3): 273-300.
• Rogers, John, (S. 2004) “Locke and the Objects of Perception,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly; 85(3): 245-254.
• Russell, Daniel, (Jan. 2004) “Locke on Land and Labor” in Philosophical Studies, 117(1-2): 303-325.
• Soles, David, (1999) “Is Locke an Imagist?” in The Locke Newsletter 30: 17-66.
• Uzgalis, William, (1988) “The Anti-Essential Locke and Natural Kinds” in The Philosophical Quarterly; 38(152) 330-339.
• Yaffe, Gideon, (S. 2004) “Locke on Ideas of Substance and the Veil of Perception,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly; 85(3): 252-272.

What's the matter, can't you tell us what YOU stand for? That is a lot of other people's opinions, are you saying you are a blind follower of all those 'different' opinions?

 

[logical4u]

Yet it is the CON$ who suppress free speech!

can you list some examples?

The most obvious example of the difference between Left and Right regarding free speech is Nixon suppressing the Smothers Brothers.

If you remember the Smothers Brothers crucified LBJ over the Vietnam War, but LBJ did nothing to shut them up. When Nixon replace LBJ the Smothers Brothers went after Nixon over the Vietnam War also. But unlike LBJ, Nixon had their top rated show kicked off the air.

Of course the way CON$ always whine and complain you would think it was CON$ and not the Smothers Brothers who were censored.

So after a century of 'oppression' by the big, bad, republicans, this is it????
You must feel so threatened. How do you live in such fear??

 

[jillian]

No, you're not much interested in Rev. White's Quote, or Burning the Flag.

Yet, you and your ILK is preceived as anything more than "unAmerican?"

***sniff, of superiority***

why would i be? i wouldn't burn a flag and i wouldn't agree with rev white? and I'm pretty sure my family's service to this country rivals anyone's.

your point?

other than partisan blather from *your* ILK.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

There are a few problems with discussions with liberals.

Good think you weren't around to have to deal with those lying Founding Fathers, then

Is there some sort of trigger that gets tripped every time someone says "liberal" that makes liberals receite the "founding fathers" and make the egregious claim that they were made of the same cloth as today's communists?

There must be.

Well, seeing as I'm not a liberalm I can't say for certain, but seing as nobody here has called the FF communists, I'd say 'no'.

 

[Rinata]

How about the time he was making fun of the guy who said "Keep your hands off my medicare"

How about in his love fest interview with Matt Lauer when he lumped everyone who disagrees with him into the birther group? [/COLOR]
And if you despise liars, you shouldn't be defending Obama should you?

A Long Post: The Complete List of Obama Statement Expiration Dates - Jim Geraghty

He did not!!! You are such a liar.

Moving back to domestic topics, Obama took a measured view of the Tea Party movement that has focused its anger on him and his administration. He took care to distinguish between the people who question his citizenship and who are convinced he’s a socialist and those who are simply concerned about the future of a country going through economic turmoil.

“There's a part of the Tea Party that actually did exist before I was elected … where there’s some folks who just weren’t sure whether I was born in the United States, whether I was a socialist. Then I think that there’s a broader circle around that core group of people who are legitimately concerned about the deficit, who are legitimately concerned that the federal government may be taking on too much. And I think those are folks who have legitimate concerns.

Obama: I?ll continue to reach out to GOP - White House

"Those who question my legitimacy"

Just who do you think Obama was tlking about when he said that?

Are you that fucking obtuse?

I'm obtuse???? He was talking about THOSE who question his legitamacy, right?? Now, you tell me how you got, "he lumped everybody who disagrees with him into the birther group" from that sentence??? Did he have to specifically tell you that this means there are some people that are not included in "THOSE"??

He took care to distinguish between the people who question his citizenship and who are convinced he’s a socialist and those who are simply concerned about the future of a country going through economic turmoil.

He took care to distinguish between the people who question his citizenship and who are convinced he’s a socialist and those who are simply concerned about the future of a country going through economic turmoil.

Read the above paragraphs again. What do they mean to you?? To me they mean that this president is bending over backwards to serve ALL of the people. When is he going to learn. Rachel is right. What for?? What does he get out of it?? More grief.

 

[Rinata]

In fact progressives actually have little or no love for people at all. If you all truly believed in freedom and liberty...

Wait wait wait. How can anyone take you seriously...or even compromise with you when you say something as spew-tastic as this. You need to take your wide paintbrush and keep moving.

So tell me what exactly on the libby progressive platform increases rather than decreases the ability of one to make his own choices?

Is it forcing people to buy health insurance?
Is it banning certain types of foods?
Is it forcing people to recycle?
Is it taking more of our money away from us to expand government?

Tell me because if there is something that the libby progressives want to do that will increase my liberties and expand my freedom of choice and allow me to keep more of the money I earn I want to know.

You know, you'd have made Mother Teresa cuss you out.

 

[del]

Wait wait wait. How can anyone take you seriously...or even compromise with you when you say something as spew-tastic as this. You need to take your wide paintbrush and keep moving.

So tell me what exactly on the libby progressive platform increases rather than decreases the ability of one to make his own choices?

Is it forcing people to buy health insurance?
Is it banning certain types of foods?
Is it forcing people to recycle?
Is it taking more of our money away from us to expand government?

Tell me because if there is something that the libby progressives want to do that will increase my liberties and expand my freedom of choice and allow me to keep more of the money I earn I want to know.

You know, you'd have made Mother Teresa cuss you out.

did she have trouble answering simple questions, too?

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

But just as the libby progressive you are you love to tell people what to do don't you?

You do realize I'm not a Liberal, right?

I thought I made that clear several times.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'd like you to find just one quote by Obama where he does any such thing. We also despise liars.

How about the time he was making fun of the guy who said "Keep your hands off my medicare"

How about in his love fest interview with Matt Lauer when he lumped everyone who disagrees with him into the birther group?
And if you despise liars, you shouldn't be defending Obama should you?

A Long Post: The Complete List of Obama Statement Expiration Dates - Jim Geraghty

He did not!!! You are such a liar.

Moving back to domestic topics, Obama took a measured view of the Tea Party movement that has focused its anger on him and his administration. He took care to distinguish between the people who question his citizenship and who are convinced he’s a socialist and those who are simply concerned about the future of a country going through economic turmoil.

“There's a part of the Tea Party that actually did exist before I was elected … where there’s some folks who just weren’t sure whether I was born in the United States, whether I was a socialist. Then I think that there’s a broader circle around that core group of people who are legitimately concerned about the deficit, who are legitimately concerned that the federal government may be taking on too much. And I think those are folks who have legitimate concerns.

Obama: I?ll continue to reach out to GOP - White House

It cracks me up that Obama always needs to be translated, so people won't think he means what he says.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

It's inaccurate to call the founding fathers "liberals" unless you are doing so in context with the strong opposition to their former government in mind.

Fail.

They were liberals by Definition- their ideology was Liberalism. They practically worshiped John Locke.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

Please list what 'libs' 'stand for'.

Finally, you admit your ignorance

I suggest you start here and here


Newsletter

• Locke Studies (formerly The Locke Newsletter), edited by Roland Hall, University of York, Heslington, York, UK <[email protected]>.

Selected Books

• Aarsleff, Hans, (1982) From Locke to Saussure: Essays on the Study of Language and Intellectual History, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press
• Alexander, Peter (1985) Ideas Qualities and Corpuscles, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Arneil, Barbara, (1996) John Locke and America, Oxford, Clarendon Press
• Aaron, Richard, (1937) John Locke, Oxford, Oxford University Press
• Ashcraft, Richard, (1986) Revolutionary Politics and Locke's Two Treatises of Civil Government, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
• Ayers, Michael (1991) Locke: Epistemology and Ontology, 2 volumes, London Routledge.
• Bennett, Jonathan, (1971) Locke, Berkeley, Hume: Central Themes, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Brandt, Reinhard, ed. (1981) John Locke: Symposium Wolfenbuttel 1979, Berlin, de Gruyter.
• Chappell, Vere (1992) Essays on Early Modern Philosophy, John ocke — Theory of Knowledge, London, Garland Publishing, Inc.
• Chappell, Vere (1994) The Cambridge Companion to Locke, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Dunn, John (1969) The Political Thought of John Locke, Cambridge University Press.
• Fox, Christopher, (1988) Locke and the Scriblerians, Berkeley, University of California Press.
• Gibson, James, (1968) Locke's Theory of Knowledge and its Historical Relations, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
• Grant, Ruth, (1987) John Locke's Liberalism, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
• Kroll, Peter; Ashcraft, Richard; Zagorin, Peter, (1992) Philosophy, Science and Religion in England 1640-1700, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Jolley, Nicholas, (1984) Leibniz and Locke, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Jolley, Nicholas, (1999) Locke, His Philosophical Thought, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Lott, Tommy, (1998) Subjugation and Bondage: Critical Essays on Slavery and Social Philosophy, New York, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc..
• Lowe, E.J., (1995) Locke on Human Understanding, London, Routledge Publishing Co..
• Mackie, J. L. (1976) Problems from Locke, Oxford, Clarendon Press
• Macpherson, C.B. (1962) The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Mandelbaum, Maurice, Philosophy, Science and Sense Perception: Historical and Critical Studies, Baltimore, The John Hopkins University Press.
• Martin, C. B. and D. M. Armstrong, eds. (1968) Locke and Berkeley: A Collection of Critical Essays, New York, Anchor Books.
• McLachlan, Hugh, (1941) Religious Opinions of Milton, Locke and Newton, Manchester, Manchester University Press.
• Mendus, Susan, (1991) Locke on Toleration in Focus, London, Routledge.
• Schouls, Peter, (1992) Reasoned Freedom: John Locke and the Enlightenment, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press
• Simmons, A. John, (1992) The Lockean Theory of Rights, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
• Tarcov, Nathan, (1984) Locke's Education for Liberty, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
• Tipton, I.C., (1977) Locke on Human Understanding: Selected Essays, Oxford, Oxford University Press
• Tully, James, (1980) A Discourse on Property, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
• Tully, James, (1993) An Approach to Political Philosophy: Locke in Contexts, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Uzgalis, William, (2007) Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding — A Reader's Guide, Continuum
• Wood, Neal, (1983) The Politics of Locke's Philosophy, Berkeley, University of California Press.
• Woolhouse, R.S., (1971) Locke's Philosophy of Science and Knowledge New York, Barnes and Noble.
• Woolhouse, R.S., (1983) Locke, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
• Woolhouse, R.S., (1988) The Empiricists, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Yaffe, Gideon, (2000) Liberty Worth the Name: Locke on Free Agency, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
• Yolton, Jean, (1990) A Locke Miscellany, Bristol, Thommes Antiquarian Books.
• Yolton, John, (1956) John Locke and the Way of Ideas Oxford, Oxford University Press, Thoemmes Press reprint 1996.
• Yolton, John (1969) John Locke: Problems and Perspectives, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Yolton, John (1970) John Locke and the Compass of Human Understanding Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
• Yolton, John (1984) Perceptual Acquaintance: From Descartes to Reid Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press
• Yolton, John (1984) Thinking Matter: Materialism in Eighteenth Century Britain, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press

Selected Articles

• Armitage, David, (2004) “John Locke, Carolina and the Two Treatises of Government,” Political Theory; 32: 602-27.
• Bernasconi, Robert, (1992)“Locke's Almost Random Talk of Man,” Perspectiven der Philosohpie 18: 293-318.
• Bolton, Martha, (S. 2004) “Locke on the semantic and epistemic role of simple ideas of sensation,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly; 85(3): 301-321.
• Chappell, Vere, (S. 2004) “Symposium: Locke and the Veil of Perception: Preface,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly; 85(3): 243-244.
• Chappell, Vere, (S. 2004) “Comments.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly; 85(3): 338-355.
• Lennon,Thomas, (S. 2004) “Through a Glass Darkly: More on Locke's Logic of Ideas,” Pacific PhilosophicalQuarterl: 85(3): 322-337.
• Newman, Lex, (S. 2004) “Locke on Sensitive Knowledge and the Veil of Perception—Four Misconceptions,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly; 85(3): 273-300.
• Rogers, John, (S. 2004) “Locke and the Objects of Perception,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly; 85(3): 245-254.
• Russell, Daniel, (Jan. 2004) “Locke on Land and Labor” in Philosophical Studies, 117(1-2): 303-325.
• Soles, David, (1999) “Is Locke an Imagist?” in The Locke Newsletter 30: 17-66.
• Uzgalis, William, (1988) “The Anti-Essential Locke and Natural Kinds” in The Philosophical Quarterly; 38(152) 330-339.
• Yaffe, Gideon, (S. 2004) “Locke on Ideas of Substance and the Veil of Perception,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly; 85(3): 252-272.

What's the matter, can't you tell us what YOU stand for?

Are you dense? I've done so many times. I've even gone and compared my views, at different points, to that of the liberals, the libertarians, the communists, the social democrats, the democratic socialists, the broader socialist movement, and individual posters here.

I describe myself as a Leftist because my views tend to be characteristic the broader Left (more precisely, I sit a little left to the classical liberals and to the right of the communists and democratic socialists) without falling neatly into any of the above categories.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

So tell me what exactly on the libby progressive platform increases rather than decreases the ability of one to make his own choices?

Is it forcing people to buy health insurance?
Is it banning certain types of foods?
Is it forcing people to recycle?
Is it taking more of our money away from us to expand government?

Tell me because if there is something that the libby progressives want to do that will increase my liberties and expand my freedom of choice and allow me to keep more of the money I earn I want to know.

You know, you'd have made Mother Teresa cuss you out.

Seeing as he didn't list any policies of any liberal politicians or ideologies, the original question is rendered stupid.

 

[Toronado3800]

The whole name tag / bumper sticker naming of groups is a product of our quite limited 2 party system.

What I feel I'm most liberal about is my interpretation of the Constitution in regards to my love of a strong centralized government vs states rights.

I'm pretty Conservative about changing things which have been working my entire life.

So tell me what exactly on the libby progressive platform increases rather than decreases the ability of one to make his own choices?

Is it forcing people to buy health insurance?
Is it banning certain types of foods?
Is it forcing people to recycle?
Is it taking more of our money away from us to expand government?

Tell me because if there is something that the libby progressives want to do that will increase my liberties and expand my freedom of choice and allow me to keep more of the money I earn I want to know.

Lord, I don't even know what liberal and conservative really mean. Just stickers so folks can believe they belong to a gang. I'm probably liberal.

I'll increase your rights to decide if you have the right to end your own life with doctor aid. (the constitution prohibits this?)

Your right to have an abortion is an opinion matter I'll keep my personal opinions out of so I'm pro choice.

Making you pay for healthcare is payback for making me potentially pay for your treatment if you show up at the hospital sick w/o insurance. (and personally I'd rather not have my neighbor's broke *ss dying in my lawn from appendicitis also)

Banning certain types of foods probably goes to far. Its obvious though folks can't baby sit themselves enough to avoid the french fries to the public detriment so lets tax them fries.

Forcing folks to recycle is a bad thing? Another part of 21st century reality Jefferson didn't have to deal with.

 

[AllieBaba]

Murder is never an opinion matter.

And that's one of the basic difference between libs and conservatives. Liberals think that right and wrong is relative, and extend that to the nth degree.

They also think might makes right. If they're in power, things like integrity, honor, right, wrong, character...none of those things matter.

 

[Rinata]

So tell me what exactly on the libby progressive platform increases rather than decreases the ability of one to make his own choices?

Is it forcing people to buy health insurance?
Is it banning certain types of foods?
Is it forcing people to recycle?
Is it taking more of our money away from us to expand government?

Tell me because if there is something that the libby progressives want to do that will increase my liberties and expand my freedom of choice and allow me to keep more of the money I earn I want to know.

You know, you'd have made Mother Teresa cuss you out.

did she have trouble answering simple questions, too?

Not if someone was really looking for an answer and not just playing games.

 

[Rinata]

How about the time he was making fun of the guy who said "Keep your hands off my medicare"

How about in his love fest interview with Matt Lauer when he lumped everyone who disagrees with him into the birther group?
And if you despise liars, you shouldn't be defending Obama should you?

A Long Post: The Complete List of Obama Statement Expiration Dates - Jim Geraghty

He did not!!! You are such a liar.

Moving back to domestic topics, Obama took a measured view of the Tea Party movement that has focused its anger on him and his administration. He took care to distinguish between the people who question his citizenship and who are convinced he’s a socialist and those who are simply concerned about the future of a country going through economic turmoil.

“There's a part of the Tea Party that actually did exist before I was elected … where there’s some folks who just weren’t sure whether I was born in the United States, whether I was a socialist. Then I think that there’s a broader circle around that core group of people who are legitimately concerned about the deficit, who are legitimately concerned that the federal government may be taking on too much. And I think those are folks who have legitimate concerns.

Obama: I?ll continue to reach out to GOP - White House

It cracks me up that Obama always needs to be translated, so people won't think he means what he says.

Oh, please. He has to be translated for people that have made up their minds to take whatever he says in a way totally different than the way he meant it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Murder is never an opinion matter.

And that's one of the basic difference between libs and conservatives. Liberals think that right and wrong is relative, and extend that to the nth degree.

They also think might makes right. If they're in power, things like integrity, honor, right, wrong, character...none of those things matter.

You supported invading a nation on the basis of lies. An act that resulted in the deaths of 4500 of our own, and hundreds of thousands in Iraq.

Your hypocrisy is more than evident.

 

[elvis]

Murder is never an opinion matter.

And that's one of the basic difference between libs and conservatives. Liberals think that right and wrong is relative, and extend that to the nth degree.

They also think might makes right. If they're in power, things like integrity, honor, right, wrong, character...none of those things matter.

You supported invading a nation on the basis of lies. An act that resulted in the deaths of 4500 of our own, and hundreds of thousands in Iraq.

Your hypocrisy is more than evident.

you mean the way Biden, emanuel and half of your ossiah's staff did?

 

[Old Rocks]

Murder is never an opinion matter.

And that's one of the basic difference between libs and conservatives. Liberals think that right and wrong is relative, and extend that to the nth degree.

They also think might makes right. If they're in power, things like integrity, honor, right, wrong, character...none of those things matter.

They sure matter more than they did in the last adminstration.

Integrity? Nothing but lies from the Neo-cons, and they were proud of it.

Honor? Avoiding military service, or recieving costly pilot training and refusing to take drug tests, wasting our money and military resources.

Right? Spying on Americans without oversight?

Wrong? Invading a much smaller nation on the basis of lies and letting the terrorist resposible for the murder of 3000 Americans on American soil go.

Character? Like Jeff Gannon, aka James Guckert, porn star. And how many overnighters did he do at the White House?

 

[Si modo]

What lies, specifically?

When was OBL "let go" (Clinton doesn't count)?