 | | Re: boulders on shoulders
|
|
(...) By her own assertion, though, she "was trying to respond to the "a failing on minorities and women to understand the Libertarian message."" She's responding to a point that wasn't being asserted; in effect, she's having an argument with an (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: boulders on shoulders
|
|
(...) At the risk of starting another thread, I have been reading the posts, but this whole new thing of reading a post, responding, then going and downloading my email, pulling up the emailed link for the posting, clicking on the button to post the (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nothing personal, but...
|
|
(...) Everyone that is bothered by it ought to. I ought to, for that matter. (...) I admit I ought to do a better job of ignoring Scott Arthur's drivel. But I just don't suffer fools gladly, and when he gets going full steam my perception of him as (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: boulders on shoulders
|
|
(...) You can clarify all you want, I've read them all. I think Katie raised a valid point though. (...) It may not be that it *isn't* convincing, or viable. It may just be that women and minorities are too busy fighting other fires to participate. (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Now: Women Was: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
|
|
(...) Great idea! You wouldn't have lasted four years here though. My dogs would have just eaten all your socks in that time. You wouldn't have to worry about learning to wash them though, you'd just be buying new ones all the time :-) (...) (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
