>>>>>If you have listened carefully to Mr. Clinton's remarks and the remarks of many Democrats in Congress, when the issue of a tax refund/rebate/giveback has come up they will more often than not couch their words in terms that indicate that they see all the earned monies in the US as theirs and they are giving us back some. Not that we earn and own the money and they are taking less.
>>>>
>>>>OK, here we go again. I could not help but notice you jumped right from facists to Clinton. If you are going to make broad statements like that, I am going to ask for specifics. Who, what, where, and when.
>>>
>>>I explained all of this two paragraphs up. Did you not read my post or do you not comprehend it? Or do you not want to? Mr. Clinton exhibits existentialism like no other public figure I've ever seen. I mean, redefining the words 'is' and 'sex' for goodness sakes. Perhaps you know nothing about existentialism? If you want me to write a treatise on Communism, Socialism, Facism and how they relate to existentialist thought then you're going to be disappointed I guess. Let me direct you to the writings of the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer for that.
>>
>>Your remark was specifically aimed at Clinton and many Democrats in regards to taxes. I have asked you to back this up. You have come back with Clinton and sex. I have not asked for your writings on communism, socialism, or facism. Just to back up your statement:
>
>Once again I refer you to my statement above. I think what you're missing is the connection between how mankind thinks about itself (typically) and how that translates into governance. Doesn't matter if its taxes, sex, last minute Executive Orders or whatever. What I'm suggesting is that how a man thinks about himself fundamentally affects how he thinks of others. Most liberals and Democarts (and far too many Republicans for that matter) follow what I outlined above.

What you are missing is that you make blanket statements about Democrats, and only when challenged, apply the remarks to Republicans as well ("and far too many Republicans for that matter"). This has been a running debate between you and I.

Specifically, this notion that most Democrats see earned monies as theirs and they are giving us back some is ludicrous. The fact is Democrats and Republicans have fundamentally different views on how to help people. While I may not agree with some Democrat's ideas, they do not see my money as theirs. They are trying to help people, however misguided their attempts.

It has nothing to do with Existentialist thought.

>I really think you've missed my point which in my mind totally answers your concerns. Mr Clinton, as a direct example of existentialist thought, sees himself as able to define words as he goes through life. Liberals and Democrats do the same thing with respect to taxation and they seem to think that the money you and I earn is theirs to allow us to keep rather than ours which they take. It all flows from how they fundamentally think about themselves.

What examples of Clinton defining words are you talking about? Like I asked before, if you are going to make blanket accusations like this, you are going to have to back it up.

>>Stick to the facts Doug. And please, do not send me on another goose-chase with your so called "facts".
>
>I did.

Where? What examples have you cited of Clinton defining words? Of Democrats saying our earned money is theirs?

>Well, I have given you my thinking on the subject. If that's not good enough for you then you have a problem I guess. You've not cited your sources either so it seems to me that you're just playing the hypocrite here as I've not asked you for yours. I take your words as you write them.

You have given your thinking without any examples to back it up. I don't have any sources to cite since I am not the one making the accusation.

>>"they see all the earned monies in the US as theirs and they are giving us back some"
>
>Well, if you need me to defend that statement all I can say is that you must not read your daily newspaper or the Internet or pay attention whatsoever to what goes on in DC. ALl of the above are my sources and it appears I am able to read them and synthisize the data. Do you not get out much? <g>

Typical. With all these statements supposedly made by most Democrats for some time now, you cannot provide an example.

>>But really, I should know better. I have asked you to do this before and:
>>
>>1. You sent me on a wild goose-chase
>>2. When I pointed out your source wasn't what you claimed it to be, you told me I should find it myself.
>
>Well, I guess your inability to see the obvious is my fault too then. <g>

No, it is your inablity to defend your arguments. Your arguments follow a pattern:

1. Make a blanket statement about liberals.
2. When asked to defend your statement, you can't.

>Chris, I cannot make you successful in your observations of what goes on around you. When I cite some of my sources you simply scoff and dismiss them.

You have cited one source, in a previous debate. It did not come close to backing up what you said. Simple as that.

>
>>
>>>>This is a Republican camp?
>>>
>>>No, not at all. There are many liberal Republicans who are IMO just as 'off the reservation' as liberal Democrats are. OTOH< there are a few conservative Democrats who are 'cool' IMO. James Trafficant for one. Funny how the so-called bipartisanship of the Democratic Party evaporated about 1 1/2 hours after they were all sworn in yesterday. Trafficant voted for Hastert as was his right and the Dems immediatly kicked him out. Now, that's Liberal Compassion for you! Hypocrites - plain and simple. I'm sick of them and the likes of Jesse Jackson who take advantage of their own for monetary gain.
>>
>>First of all, I have no respect for a man that wear polyester suits (Traficant), although ending each speech in the House with "Beam Me Up" might get my vote. < g >
>
><g>
>
>So, since he differs in his opinions he's now a target for ridicule? Is this what you call clear thinking? What about the content of his daily speeches?

Clear thinking would have been to point out in your post that the Democrat's issues with Trafficant go way past his support of Hassert. You did not do that. You mislead, either deliberately or by accident. Either way, you mislead.

>>Second of all, the feud between Traficant and the other Democrats goes back a ways, and I think you failed to mention that Traficant rarely attends Democratic caucus meetings and has been at odds with the party since at least last March.
>
>Right, and this is IMO really more evidence of the structural intolerance and bigotry of the Democrats. Did you catch Maxine Waters the other day asserting that she did not care what the rules were? Now there's a sterling example of bigotry, close-mindedness, narrow-mindedness, arrogance and outright hate if I've ever seen it. And yet Democrats don't even have the internal party character to purge garbage like that from their midst. Yes indeedy.. The pparty of the little guy who all ride in their limosines to their rallies. <g>

Bigotry? Bigotry against whom? Bigotry against polyester? I am all for it! How has this debate shifted to Maxine Walters?

>>Then again, I am getting use to you leaving out the pertinent facts.
>
>Well, I've long since gotten used to you misinterpreting what I write so I guess we're even. <g>

No, I just challenge what you write. When asked to defend it, like above with your comments on Trafficant, you try to shift the debate. Why did you not point out in your orignal post the problems between the Democrats and Trafficant?

>>Do your research Doug. The House had specific rules against it, the Senate doesn't. It's as simple as this: Newt broke the rules (and very similar rules to the ones he demolished Jim Wright with), and Hilary didn't.
>
>Please cite those rules Chris. You have consistently failed to provide your sources.... <g> How am I to believe you when you consistently fail to provide me with the least bit or shred of credible sources?? You see, you don't do it either Chris.

When asked, I provide my sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/19/clinton.memoir.ap/index.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/newtscript.html

Now, quid pro quo.