nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
26,487
edits
Changes
→Discussion
::::That is exactly the point in the above language proposed for inclusion. Somehow we got off on a discussion of politcs. Point is "liberals" whoever that group is, I personally don't beleive many of them actually have an ideology, of if they do, they can't tell you what it is. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:26, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::That is exactly the point in the above language proposed for inclusion. Somehow we got off on a discussion of politcs. Point is "liberals" whoever that group is, I personally don't beleive many of them actually have an ideology, of if they do, they can't tell you what it is. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:26, 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)
:'''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)
*Yes, <s>Conservative</s>, errr, Rob, I hear you. Could you be so kind as to bold what the heck passage you are saying is going to be re-inserted unless proof to your personal satisfaction is provided?