Why do you still support Bush?

woiyo wrote:

candidone1 wrote:

The fact that its happening in Canada by a Canadian administration is an embarassment, and an even more outrageous incident due to our relatively peaceful and diplomatic history.
The Harper administration will do anything to curry favor with the Bush administration, and that includes following the examples made in the past by Washington.

And you actually believe they are being "beaten up" by the guards?

You believe being held in confinement is tourture?

YOU are why many people support Bush. YOU would prefer these scumbags be put up at the Four Seasons Hotel?

To be fair, I doubt they prefer the four season's.
An econo-lodge perhaps, but nothing too luxurious.

McGentrix wrote:

woiyo wrote:

candidone1 wrote:

The fact that its happening in Canada by a Canadian administration is an embarassment, and an even more outrageous incident due to our relatively peaceful and diplomatic history.
The Harper administration will do anything to curry favor with the Bush administration, and that includes following the examples made in the past by Washington.

And you actually believe they are being "beaten up" by the guards?

You believe being held in confinement is tourture?

YOU are why many people support Bush. YOU would prefer these scumbags be put up at the Four Seasons Hotel?

To be fair, I doubt they prefer the four season's.
An econo-lodge perhaps, but nothing too luxurious.

What do the Moslems have against The 4 Seasons ?
David

OmSigDAVID wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

woiyo wrote:

candidone1 wrote:

The fact that its happening in Canada by a Canadian administration is an embarassment, and an even more outrageous incident due to our relatively peaceful and diplomatic history.
The Harper administration will do anything to curry favor with the Bush administration, and that includes following the examples made in the past by Washington.

And you actually believe they are being "beaten up" by the guards?

You believe being held in confinement is tourture?

YOU are why many people support Bush. YOU would prefer these scumbags be put up at the Four Seasons Hotel?

To be fair, I doubt they prefer the four season's.
An econo-lodge perhaps, but nothing too luxurious.

What do the Moslems have against The 4 Seasons ?
David

Their songs violated the teachings in the Koran.

Can't be doin' Sherry Baby!!!!

It is not shouting.
Bolding makes it easier to see and nicer to read;
has nothing to do with shouting.


Generally, I agree with conventional grammar
( excluding the rule against splitting infinitives,
because of the state of affairs in the Latin language;
I do not respect nor accept the logic thereof ).


As to spelling,
tho most of my life I 've been a conservative speller,
upon re-consideration, I deplore the failure of sound reasoning
in continuing useless silent letters that harken back to Chaucerian English.
I analogize it to carrying around 10 pounds of useless iron,
out of respect for tradition. Logic shud be exalted above tradition.

Depending upon the seriousness of what I am writing,
I may relent and de-emfasize my demonstrations
of easier ways to write.
David

OmSigDAVID wrote:

It is not shouting.
Bolding makes it easier to see and nicer to read;
has nothing to do with shouting.


Generally, I agree with conventional grammar
( excluding the rule against splitting infinitives,
because of the state of affairs in the Latin language;
I do not respect nor accept the logic thereof ).


As to spelling,
tho most of my life I 've been a conservative speller,
upon re-consideration, I deplore the failure of sound reasoning
in continuing useless silent letters that harken back to Chaucerian English.
I analogize it to carrying around 10 pounds of useless iron,
out of respect for tradition. Logic shud be exalted above tradition.

Depending upon the seriousness of what I am writing,
I may relent and de-emfasize my demonstrations
of easier ways to write.
David

And then there's always the concept of accurate communication but then, I suppose, you would find that irksome.
The Dys.

No, David you are not Muslim, but you are clearly an imp of that Great Satan who illegally occupies the White House while pursuing the subjugation of God's favorite children who follow the Holy Koran.

Seriously, do you have to shout? Is it too much to ask that your posts be checked over for grammar, spelling and clarity? Given the hordes of left wing-nuts here, we need serious conservatives to set a high standard. Oh well .......

Om Sig David- I must say that I do agree with you on your concept of "Conceptual Emphasis." I hope that I am correct when I say that some of the responses I see on these threads reveal readers who either have not read the posts or readers who do not understand the key ideas.

Therefore, at times, I feel it is necessary, as I am sure that you do, to highlight certain key terms. This procedure should, I hope, catch the eye of the respondent, and lead the person to concentrate on the KEY LINES or the KEY PHRASE>

Does this mean that I feel that some on these threads do not know how to find KEY LINES OR KEY PHRASES?

Yes. it does!

But, notwithstanding that, Om Sig David, I would respectfully advise you to listen carefully to Mr. Asherman. I am of the opinion, after reading ten or fifteen of his excellent posts, that he not only gives a very compact explanation of various concepts and Histories, he rarely makes mistakes!

Thank you, David.

Your views are quite sufficient to attract our attention without the large colorful banners. The concept of individual liberty is fundamental to what the United States is all about. Liberty is never total, but is always justifiably balanced against the interests of society at large. We give up a degree of our freedom in exchange for a nation of laws. We prize opportunity that we might capitalize on our assets. We value meritocracy as a means of opening the doors of opportunity to any person who has initiative, and is willing to work hard.

The Constitution has always been a balancing act between the needs of the whole nation, and the goal of guaranteeing the greatest degree of personal liberty possible. Throughout most of our political history, the Federal government was constrained against directly acting in ways that could be defined as "interfering with individual liberty". That was shown to be ineffective by the late 19th century; the Gilded Age and Robber Barons acting together in restraint of fair trade. Without the fly-wheel of national government, individuals and companies became so powerful that they could strangle liberty for the American People at large. Trust-Busting helped, but lack of Federal controls were contributing factors to both the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. President Hoover felt he could not do more because of Constitutional constraints, and most informed people agreed with that interpretation of the Constitution. FDR's approach was to act promptly, even if his policies and programs were unConstitutional. The Supreme Court tossed most of the New Deal. In response FDR tried to "pack the court" and failed.

Some of the New Deal programs were very popular because they provided a Federal guarantee that everyone one who worked would be provided with a minimal safety-net. Public Health programs were hated by many doctors, but the general health and well-being of the old, the crippled and children was greatly improved. Farmers and grocers predicted disaster would result from Federal farm programs, price supports, and programs to feed the hungry. After the Great War, we were a rich nation and could well afford to continue all the social programs adopted for the first time during the 1930s and 40's.

During the 1960's the savings accounts were getting thin, but LBJ was determined that his "New Society" would banish poverty in America forever, and damn the cost. We were to have both guns to protect freedom in Vietnam, and butter for everyone below the poverty line in America's slums. The whole thing was a disaster, though we did finally see the end of the shameful Jim Crow Laws. Social Programs exploded in number and cost. Part of the cost was that the Federal government became involved in virtually every aspect of American life. Federal regulations reached into every household and private citizens found that many of their liberties were now regulated in Washington. That meant the end of segregation, but also meant that Political Correctness could and would be enforced by the Federal government. Some of the results were great and others just dangerous to the concept of individual liberty. We first crossed the Rubicon during the FDR administration, and the Rubicon was crossed again by the Great Society.

For good or ill, there's not much chance of going back and reclaiming the degree of individual liberty that existed from 1785 up until the mid-20th century. I'm not so sure that even if it were possible, it would be worth it if we reverted to racial segregation, a heavy-handed judicial system, and a time when corporate raiders were more common than they are today. Personally, I'd hate to give up Medicare benefits, and my Social Security check always manages to pull us through another emergency. The tax money that used to be collected may have paid for a minimal U.S. military and the costs of maintaining ambassadors at foreign courts, but was totally inadequate for building a network of national roadways. Federal regulations helped to kill the U.S. Merchant Marine, but the Navy is now the best in the world. A bureaucrat in Washington can dictate how our communities spend their local tax revenues, but scoundrels find it much harder to rob the public purse today than they did in 1626. The size of the Federal government has ballooned, but most of those civil-servants give good value for their pay.

We and our Constitution continue to evolve, but the Constitution designed to encourage delay and compromise has kept the pace of change within managible limits. There are good reasons for citizens to be concerned about the reach of the Government, but no reason yet for panic or despair. We have to keep the faith and preserve in our hearts and minds the most precious of our foundations. Now is not the time to cry that the Nation is doomed, but for every citizen to cleave ever closer to the Republic as our surest guarantor of individual liberty and justice.

( e.g., the 20th Century socialist dictatorships
in Russia and in Germany ).

OmSigDAVID wrote:

( e.g., the 20th Century socialist dictatorships
in Russia and in Germany ).

There has neither been a socialist dictorship in Germany nor in Russia, not in the 20th century nor at any other time.

The German Worker's Party used some of this money to advertise their meetings. Adolf Hitler was often the main speaker and it was during this period that he developed the techniques that made him into such a persuasive orator.

Hitler's reputation as an orator grew and it soon became clear that he was the main reason why people were joining the party. This gave Hitler tremendous power within the organization as they knew they could not afford to lose him.

In April, 1920, Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.

Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

( e.g., the 20th Century socialist dictatorships
in Russia and in Germany ).

There has neither been a socialist dictorship in Germany nor in Russia,
not in the 20th century nor at any other time.

I do not accept your version of history.