Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

It's come to this, again, and again and again lately...we don't have a spending problem, dang it! Take it away Sen, Tom Harkin (D-IA) ...



It's a bit odd for a Dem to be talking American exceptionalism and high per capita incomes these days, but I digress. Since when is $3.5 trillion a year not a spending problem?

And the man whose budgets have been DOA even for Democrats gives us this squirelly non-pledge, “let me repeat: Nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime."

Are Americans believing that? Are you falling for it?

---

Yeah the Dems have no problem spending... it's the paying back they don't get .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

yeah the Dems have no problem spending ... it's the paying back they don't get .

---

I don't think they have that alone Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Maybe it's how it's worded, a mix of negs and positives...sounds neg. i.e., no teacher can be trusted because of union rules.

---

Your pretty close to the mark. A universal negative proposition (E) can be obverted into a universal affirmative (A} proposition. Consider the following:

No teachers are trustworthy because of union rules.

All teachers are non-trustworthy because of union rules.

In other words, the two propositions are saying the same thing

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Your pretty close to the mark. A universal negative proposition (E) can be obverted into a universal affirmative (A} proposition. Consider the following:

No teachers are trustworthy because of union rules.

All teachers are non-trustworthy because of union rules.

In other words, the two propositions are saying the same thing

Tut

---

In what way is that positive excepting to those who want to exploit the political idelogy of negativity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

in what way is that positive excepting to those who want to exploit the political idelogy of negativity

---

That would depend on the way propositions are used. We can always deny the validity of the propositions being used, but we can never deny that a universal negative proposition can be obverted into a universal affirmative proposition.


I am not sure if this answers your question.

In your example neither proposition is affirmative

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

in your example neither proposition is affirmative

---

I think I see what you are getting at. Declarative propositions can be divided into those which the predicate denies something of the subject or affirms something of the subject. In other words, we can have 'affirmative' or 'negative' propositions.

I think you are asking if we can change negative propositions into affirmative propositions.


Tut

Screw the grammar lessons!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

screw the grammar lessons !!!!!!!!!

---

It isn't grammar. Nonetheless,I can see that my efforts are not appreciated. So on that note a shall retire from the site. Have fun in the future with it.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

It isn't grammar. Nonetheless,I can see that my efforts are not appreciated. So on that note a shall retire from the site. Have fun in the future with it.

Tut

---

Hey! I was cheering you on from the Peanut Gallery!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Hey! I was cheering you on from the Peanut Gallery!

---

Don't enourage him

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

It isn't grammar. Nonetheless,I can see that my efforts are not appreciated. So on that note a shall retire from the site. Have fun in the future with it.

Tut

---

Hasta la vista... for the record ;I neither said "No teachers are trustworthy because of union rules."
Or
"All teachers are non-trustworthy because of union rules."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

hasta la vista ... for the record ;I neither said "No teachers are trustworthy because of union rules."
or
"All teachers are non-trustworthy because of union rules."

---

Just for the record I didn't say your did. Just for the record I didn't imply you did.Just for the record I was answering a question from Wondergirl. Find the post that disputes these claims.

Stay around Tutty, I have no problem with you or anyone setting grammar issues straight, I'm always in learning mode.
Cheers.

Quote:

---

Just for the record I didn't say your did. Just for the record I didn't imply you did.Just for the record I was answering a question from Wondergirl. Find the post that disputes these claims.

---

I suggest you instead find my post that she cherry picked to make her observation .

Quote:

---

Stay around Tutty, I have no problem with you or anyone setting grammar issues straight, I'm always in learning mode.
Cheers.
Reply

---

But unlike you ,Tut is not an ankle biting troll . His posts in the past contributed to the discussion rather than nit picking details .

Quote:

---

But unlike you ,Tut is not an ankle biting troll

---

Ad hominem?
A troll is not someone who points out inaccuracies in the content of your posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Ad hominem?
A troll is not someone who points out inaccuracies in the content of your posts.

---

Creeper would more accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

That's scary.

---

You thinking that's scary us what's scary.

Quote:

---

Creeper would more accurate.

---

I watch you sleep at night.

Quote:

---

You thinking that's scary us what's scary.

---

English?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I watch you sleep at night.

---

No, Molly would eat you and I have guns.

Quote:

---

English?

---

Tablet keyboard.