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 / *17751 (-20)
  Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
 
(...) I always thought you were disingenuously pretending that the questions weren't answered either because you don't like the answer that was given or as a rhetorical technique to convince your readers that your opponent in the debate is a fool. (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
 
(...) militia? Well, I think the duty part is Larry's opinion. One that I vaguely share, but I certainly wouldn't hold people to. It's just that we think more highly of people who fully participate in the way of American governance. There are lots (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
 
(...) Yeah, really! What I find annoying is the refusal of some people to do their own homework (i.e ANY reading at all). I think the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is actually fairly clear, although at this precise moment in time it may be wished (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
 
(...) As you know, I only ask the same question more than once when someone is avoiding answering it. After all, if the question has been answered, what is the point in asking it again? Scott A (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: red light cameras CAUSE accidents
 
(...) I have a SEVERE issue with this statement. If someone borrows your car (with your blessing) and commits a crime with it, how could you possibly say it is the car owner's fault? Unless the owner is sitting next to the driver when the crime was (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: blair's dossier (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
 
(...) This is the correct link: (URL) A (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
 
(...) My axe is pro-justice, not anti-US. (...) That is why I stick to fact, not opinion. I suggest you do the same. (...) My original point was why attack Iraq at the same time as supporting the misdeeds of others? (...) See above. (...) There is (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: red light cameras CAUSE accidents
 
(...) We don't have "cop cars", we have "police cars", "panda" cars and "jam sandwiches". ;) (...) Road signs (speed and distances) have always been in MPH. I have no idea why that was seen as being worth keeping. Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  blair's dossier (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
 
(...) ... and Blair has just published his "dossier": (URL) A (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
 
Some questions from down under... In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) ...and do you therefore also have a duty to be part of a well regulated militia? (...) But couldn't they be seen also as a method of regulating the (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
 
(...) It says "the security of a free state", not "the maintaining of a free state from internal tyrants" or even "securing a free state". It's a long reach to place your interpretation on the law as written. Bruce (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
 
(...) Didn't we dispose of this red herring already? Really, it's rather tiresome going round and round and round with you, you're displaying the Scott Arthur nature here a bit... and it doesn't score you any points with the regulars, you may want (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
 
(...) Where you looking? I truncated, I didn't remember the *exact* quote, and I didn't want to go looking for it, but my original posting was written as a response to the explicit 2nd, and I paraphrased last time--sorry 'bout that--but now that you (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
 
(...) No, not close, in fact completely wrong. The 2nd says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." [snip] (...) If you bother to read... (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
 
(...) interest (...) would (...) Kurds (...) (URL) Gee Brain I forgot the link. -Mike Petrucelli (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: neighbors
 
(...) I had a similar experience once. Pretty much the same thing, except it was the fourth of july. They were quieter until a 2:30 group sing-a-long of "Proud to be an American" Nothing makes me prouder than 60 drunks singing that song. :) (...) It (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
 
(...) Ok I mixed up Iraq's gassing of Kurds in the late 80s with Turkey bombing Kurds in Iraq about 2 years ago. Either way the Dictator should go. Do I think Bush Jr. is going about it in the proper way. Heck No! But even Bush Jr.'s self-serving (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it aga
 
(...) Of course Caesar spoke latin, so it isn't a direct quote. But how do you know it's false? But in any case, I changed my .signature to not have that quote anymore. --Bill. (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
 
(...) Yup. I have taken the MBTI (as well as others) on multiple occasions, and I don't think I've ever gotten the same result twice. Extrovert vs Introvert is a particularly bad one for me - I exhibit characteristics of both, and different people (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
 
Very well said. Thanks for providing some background. One point I'd like to add to the punishment/end of punishment (or replace "punishment" with "containment" or whatever if it feels more comfortable): I am comfortable with "punishments" which (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, 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