Stephen Beecroft wrote:
-Val-
And, for the record John ;-) I am a good Mormon Democrat (put
the modifer where you will).
Then I'm willing to bet you're not a liberal Democrat. Because of that,
many other Democrats would certainly not consider you to be good. But
I agree with you; it's
-Val-
I am a good Mormon Democrat
-Stephen-
Then I'm willing to bet you're not a liberal Democrat.
-Marc-
Please don't define *our* language for us.
Marc, I am talking to a fellow American here, not to an Aussie or a
Brit. If your understanding of American politics too sparse to acquaint
Please don't define *our* language for us. You can demonize the word all
you
want, but please keep your etymological waste products to yourself.
Liberal is
still a perfectly fine word in the majority of the English-speaking
world.
I agree. The Republicans are trying to kill a perfectly good word
At 09:09 PM, Tuesday, 10/22/02, Stephen Beecroft wrote:
But in my judgment, you can't be a liberal Democrat, supporting the
liberal Democrat party line, and still be a faithful, believing Latter-day
Saint. Much as some, American and otherwise, might find that hard to
understand, I think it's
Now, now, Marc. Giving you the last word doesn't mean giving you license
to misquote and make stuff up. To wit:
You used the phrase [here] and elsewhere. It was the
elsewhere that I was taking objection to.
This is untrue. I did not use the phrase and elsewhere, as you
yourself go on to
Sorry, you're right -- you wrote otherwise. But I don't see that it makes any
difference to my ultimate point. In any case, I've admitted that I should have
asked you what you meant before I responded, so you still have a point.
Stephen Beecroft wrote:
Now, now, Marc. Giving you the last word
