From 1985 to 1998. I went to both public and private schools. Some opperated by the government over in europe and some operated in the US by school districts and some by nuns. And in all my experiences not once did the teachers ever say they where liberal or republican. I believe its against the rules of conduct.

Oh and don't bother, thats one of the stupidest things I have heard from you yet. Liberlaism can not be mental disease by the definition of the word mental disease; an abnormal mental condition that interferes with mental or emotional processes and internal behavioral control and that is not manifest only in repeated criminal or antisocial conduct. So keep trying...

 

Liberalism, like Conservatism, can be considered as such because it "interferes with mental processes"

Regardless, BOTH aren't a good thing even though you're free to have whatever opinion you want.

 

Oh i fully agree that kid got the shaft but thats not the norm. Notice how the upper staff went for his favor. And how the ACLU got involved. Don't see that happening with this case, I wonder why. Oh and the kid is a little dick in how he portrays others besides those for his cause. And im talking about the students he posted there picture.

 

Its not a crime or a antisocial conduct though?

 

...most people who define what mental diseases are (nuerologists, neuroscientists, psycologists, etc...) are liberal. but being liberal is a mental disease. so all mental diseases are defined by mentally diseased people, thereby invalidating all mental diseases. So mental disease doesn't exist, so being liberal can't possibly be a mental disease because mental diseases don't exist.


liberalism=communism=mental disease
just like
conservatism=facism=Napoleonic syndrome (aka little man's disease)

if one's true, so is the other Oaf

 

It's been a while since I've seen such backwards, twisted logic. (oh, but sorry for accusing you of starting this thread- I just assumed you did guaging from your other threads)

Are you tring to say that Bush's lack of structure and credentials and his inability to speak to the non-simple minded makes him the better chioce? At least when someone can put their thoughts into words, it tells you that they are thinking. Bush's simple, straightforward method of communication disregards and looks over many important implications of what he's saying, allowing him to speak calmly with a smile about the disaster in the mid-east, etc.

..."we came here to get the job done, and that's what werr gonn do." Some might ask, Why did you go to Iraq again? How exactly are you going to get the job done? Bush's lack of eloquence, as I see it, allows him to step around these questions, and for the most part, our population doesn't seem to care and thinks he's got a much better handle on these things than he actually does.

So, to summarize my argument, I believe having a President that is not cabable of speaking in complex sentences allows (and encourages) the population he is leading to be just as ignorant and close-minded. To answer your question, I believe that Kerry's eloquence has the power to open minds and make people think- so, yes, his ability to speak is one of the countless reasons that John Kerry is the better man for the job.

Or, if you'd like to stay in the dark (it's quite warm and cozy, I know) and continue to be talked to like a 8-year-old, you know who to vote for.

 

Whoops, it's a mistake. We're sorry-- Campaign literature mistakenly sent home with third graders

http://www.ktvq.com/global/story.asp...Type=Printable