 | | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Uh, just so there's no confusion, I was kidding about the "that's MINE" bit. Dave! (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
Oh I hate when this happens--I had a most beautiful resonse in the making and I accidentally closed explorer!! Grr!!! K, here goes--take 2 Using West Wing for a basis of research on politics is like using Pretty Woman for the basis of reasearch on (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) I've never watched the show, but I'm given to wonder if the people to whom it's marketed are themselves disposed to the sort of government depicted on the small screen. I'm loathe to use the term "statist" since it's become something of a (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) See the following. I rather found it interesting: (URL) Oh, he had a private life--the problem is that everyone knew about it! (...) That's not democracy, if one opinion is higher than all others. It may be reality, but it's anathema to the (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Hmm. Good point. Still, it's risky for the leader of the nation to take a stance on religion when there's a very real chance of being exclusionary on that basis. (...) Oh, he had a private life--the problem is that everyone knew about it! (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) lol, and it is *because* of this self-imposed slavery that we *remain* the "free-est" and greatest nation on the planet. (...) Wrong. They are the cornerstone of our greatness. Without them we would be nothing. They *are* sacred, or at least (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> You would be well served not to use "West Wing" as your basis for research, or even for sound bites. It's terribly biased in the statist/socialist direction and the writers are quite skillful (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
Back into the fray (from a much needed absence 'cause I had to re-evaluate the way I come across in my posts...) /America rant on The next time anyone tells me the USofA is the 'free-est' nation on the planet, I'm going to point to this thread (and (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Interesting that the same Amendment that you cite condemning his "endorsment" of religion protects his right to do so. But I think you are applying it incorrectly in this case. The First Amendment prohibits *congress* from establishing (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) In every speech in which W invokes God on behalf of America, he's endorsing religion. When he condemned the court's decision, he explicitly endorsed religion. In his private life, George can worship absolutely anything he chooses, but as The (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) I'd say that the actual start of our country is somewhat nebulous. I guess it feels good for us to say that it is 4 July 1776, but we had been effectively governing ourselves for some time at that point. Further, I think the adoption of the (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. )
|
|
(...) This is exactly what I think happened. (...) That is probably good advice in many instances. But generally I guage my efforts by how amusing it is TO ME to make the response. Yes, if you can believe it -- I entertain myself this way at times. (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. )
|
|
(...) Nope, I am not the slightest interested in acknowledgement of the effort at all, not unless it leads to interesting discussions. That would be cool. FWIW, it has also been my understanding that there is no real standard of behavior as to (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) :-) (...) Um, aren't we splitting hairs here? The Continental Congress ratified the DoI on July 4, 1776. We mark this date as the beginning of our country (you're no the only one who has a command of the obvious!:) So are you trying to argue (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. )
|
|
(...) Whew! I'm sure I will. I place an unseemly value on "the really good notes" in this forum. Most of those have been written by you about the law and related politics, LFB about history and particularly it's effects on our current perceptions, (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. )
|
|
(...) Your tone suggests, contrary to your words, that you'd appreciate an acknowledgement of your effort. And I don't think that's out of line, but I'm also not sure what our common understanding of this issue is (if there is one). (...) I think a (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. )
|
|
(...) No one can tell you whether you should or should not be offended, but had I gone to the trouble to write what you wrote and got no acknowledgment specifically from the person who requested the info, you bet I'd be offended. (But then I guess (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. )
|
|
Dave and Lar: Thanks for the replies. I am really interested in what people have to say about this issue, but at the same time I am really NOT offended that Christopher has done nothing at this point. It is merely that his having done nothing allows (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. )
|
|
(...) Agree with Larry. Netiquette could swing both ways depending on who, when, and what forum. (...) Ok, my take is a very definite "no". My advice is: Don't be offended by anything. Or try not to be. It's a waste of emotion, and being a negative (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. )
|
|
(...) If it had been me that asked for info I probably would have sent you a private thanks. Or maybe even a public one. The line between clutter and politeness is indistinct in this area. I doubt very much that Chris slighted you deliberately, (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
