768
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 419:
Line 419: +
→Discussion
::(a) did Republicans threaten to withhold funding for Kosovo? (b) did Repubs cutoff aid for Kosovo? (c) did Repubas march int he street to protest Kosovo? etc. etc. etc. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::(a) did Republicans threaten to withhold funding for Kosovo? (b) did Repubs cutoff aid for Kosovo? (c) did Repubas march int he street to protest Kosovo? etc. etc. etc. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::How many American soldiers died in Kosovo? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:13, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::(a) It looks like the considered it [http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/92895Bosnia.pdf] (b) How diffcult is it for you to understand that Liberals '''unequal''' democrats '''unequal''' Anti-War crowd? [[User:Order]]
:::(a) It looks like the considered it [http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/92895Bosnia.pdf] (b) How diffcult is it for you to understand that Liberals '''unequal''' democrats '''unequal''' Anti-War crowd? [[User:Order]]
:'''Comment''': One big charge on an ideological plane conservatives make against liberals is changing the meanings of words to suit whatever the purpose of the moment is. We see this on the mainspace in the discussion about a "living constitution", that liberal judges, at a particular moment, can invent meanings in the text of the Consitution out of thin air that just aren't there in the words of the original. Or the old example whetever the meaning of is is, etc. For this discussion, unless you guys can nail it down, and refute the mountain of sources available at our fingertips, this passage will go back in. Because the meanings of the words are factual. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:'''Comment''': One big charge on an ideological plane conservatives make against liberals is changing the meanings of words to suit whatever the purpose of the moment is. We see this on the mainspace in the discussion about a "living constitution", that liberal judges, at a particular moment, can invent meanings in the text of the Consitution out of thin air that just aren't there in the words of the original. Or the old example whetever the meaning of is is, etc. For this discussion, unless you guys can nail it down, and refute the mountain of sources available at our fingertips, this passage will go back in. Because the meanings of the words are factual. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)