To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / *12826 (-10)
  Re: Response to Misinformation (Some other perspectives on the tragedy)
 
(...) This is what the Romans did to Israel. So which claim is legitimate then? Israel's or the Palestinians? (...) From the governed, do they not? Either by consent or by conceding. At any rate, the governed allow what becomes. (...) But what would (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Scott Arthur not welcome?
 
(...) sufficient to make that post or class of posts "not welcome" then every single post you make is "not welcome" because there are people saying that very thing about your posts. That's taking your argument to its logical extreme. Further, you (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
 
(...) In all seriousness, this is news to me. I admit that the LP's views are sometimes in line with what actually comes to pass (just as my views are sometimes also in line), but I wasn't aware of any direct influence. Can you give a cite? Dave! (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
 
I am still "done" but I spotted a bit of poor wording... fixing it: (...) "that is a majority opinion" refers to the notion of supporting the president no matter what is decided. I don't think nuking is likely to be a majority opinion, (knock on (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
 
(...) That's a far different statement than your previous and I welcome your expressing your opinion. But calling it pandering is a smear. (...) "Crisis" unless we have several concurrent ones (which I guess you could say we do). I have already (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Response to Misinformation (Some other perspectives on the tragedy)
 
(...) Didn't those folks actually go in and buy land from people who they sincerely and with good foundation believed to be the rightful owners at the time (1) rather than settle lands from which the previous owners had been evicted, which is the (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
 
(...) Not an overreaction nor deliberate maliciousness. Just stating my opinion that the LP Statement is moot. The LP must know that their opinion in this crises is moot. Whether or not you like it, the majority of the country could care less about (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Response to Misinformation (Some other perspectives on the tragedy)
 
(...) let me add to this then - there has _always_ been a jewish settlement in Israel. Way before 1948. And since the late the 1880s, there has been a secular-jewish settlemens in Israel as well. So the UN did not give "a third group" a land that (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
 
(...) Or as disproof either. You are correct sir. Insert a "necessarily" in the appropriate place so my statement reads: That an opinion is being ignored doesn't *necessarily* make it wrong or even irrelevant. I would say that these particular (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
 
(...) Well, not unless it's being ignored *because* it's wrong or even irrelevant; that is, the fact that an opinion is ignored cannot be taken as proof that it's being ignored for political reasons. Dave! (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR