Why was she flying with incense?
In what way? Because they were out protecting those too, last time I checked.
What I emphazised is clearly a violation of the Establishment clause.The ACLU established the Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief in 2005. The Program is designed to help safeguard American constitutional principles by ensuring that governmental laws and practices neither promote religion nor interfere with its free exercise.
That doesn't follow. If we invert your statement, then "patriots are anti-war activists", which is patently false.Anti war activists are patriots, btw.
Not patriots if they advocate victory for the other side, spit on our troops, and interfere with military bases and rail movements and such.
If a person who conducted guerrilla warfare, actively engaged troops and spoke out against the regime not a patriot, what was Patrick Henry or Benjamin Martin (aka Swamp Fox)?Not patriots if they advocate victory for the other side, spit on our troops, and interfere with military bases and rail movements and such.
last sentence of article about the girlscouts. "Parents of campers were informed of the discovery when they picked up their children." For some reason that struck me as funny..."Oh by the way..."You never know about those girl scouts...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/16/national/main4264813.shtml
Meh, I'm calling this one crap. First off, don't invert anything I post to make your position stronger. It proves nothing, and is so weak an argument as to render the point moot from the beginning. Secondly, your contention that the inversion is "patently false" has no basis in fact. I'm stunned. Let's review.That doesn't follow. If we invert your statement, then "patriots are anti-war activists", which is patently false.
So, saying "Anti war activists can be patriots", or "Some anti-war activists are patriots" would be better.
I agree wholeheartedly. But these aren't the ones I'm referring to. I'm speaking of those with the courage to call the baby ugly, and use the system to regulate the system (free speech, courts, the press, etcetera).Not patriots if they advocate victory for the other side, spit on our troops, and interfere with military bases and rail movements and such.
I agree wholeheartedly. But these aren't the ones I'm referring to. I'm speaking of those with the courage to call the baby ugly, and use the system to regulate the system (free speech, courts, the press, etcetera).
Jefferson said, in "Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XXII":Amerika. We have touched a nerve, haven't we. You can change my definition after your side overthrows our government.
I doubt if Jefferson would have or condoned active interference with military operations in time of war. He never served or even fired a weapon at anyone as far as I know. And the actions of those you mentioned plus all the rest of our founding fathers and moms are beyond comparison with those whom I described.
Again, Speaking out is is fine. Marching with placards is fine.
Disrespecting those who serve and, I repeat, interfering with troop movements and hoping our country loses are not acts of patriotism.
Actually- inverting a statement can work if you agree on the definition. It is an examination of language and can reveal fallacies. So don't get all in a huff when someone does it to you. However, I think your following paragraph defends your position pretty well.Meh, I'm calling this one crap. First off, don't invert anything I post to make your position stronger. It proves nothing, and is so weak an argument as to render the point moot from the beginning. Secondly, your contention that the inversion is "patently false" has no basis in fact. I'm stunned. Let's review.
LimeyDawg said:Anti war activists are patriots, btw.
That doesn't follow. If we invert your statement, then "patriots are anti-war activists", which is patently false.
So, saying "Anti war activists can be patriots", or "Some anti-war activists are patriots" would be better.
Meh, I'm calling this one crap. First off, don't invert anything I post to make your position stronger. It proves nothing,...
Monty Python said:All of Elmer Cogen is dead. However, not all of the class of dead people is Elmer Cogen.
A=/B Therefore, the contention that A=B is patently false....and is so weak an argument as to render the point moot from the beginning. Secondly, your contention that the inversion is "patently false" has no basis in fact.
I'm stunned. Let's review.
donroc said:Not patriots if they advocate victory for the other side, spit on our troops, and interfere with military bases and rail movements and such.
I agree wholeheartedly. But these aren't the ones I'm referring to.
It proves that you made a statement of the form A = B. Logically, B must then = A. Inverting the statement is a simple test. So simple, in fact, that there is no need for a formal proof. To quote the Masters:
Actually- inverting a statement can work if you agree on the definition. It is an examination of language and can reveal fallacies. So don't get all in a huff when someone does it to you. However, I think your following paragraph defends your position pretty well.
Now you're being obtuse, Kuwi. Oh, sorry, that's triangles, not squares. Nevermind.