 | | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) "no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more that two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more that once." (...) I guess that's (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) <snip> I really don't know if I should post this link, first of all 'cause of the bad language factor, and it has to do with a little video game I play (yeah, my other hobby that takes (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
(...) OK, stand in front of a mirror and say "Scott's santimonious self-righteousness" three times fast. (...) "n", "m"... Sound about the same and not a lot of difference pictorially(1). Just one hump. And whats just one hump between friends, I ask (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A bounty on spammers
|
|
(...) I didn't read all the way through. Does it say how it's going to handle off shore SPAM? Most of the SPAM I receive fits into one of three categories: - e-mail from services I've signed up for (i.e. not really SPAM) - off shore - notifications (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
(...) Actually, that's how it started. I even pointed out that many of my answers were hardly serious, or not even necessarily my own viewpoint. I just thought Scott's santimonious self-righteousness need a bit of puncturing. (...) Tymbrimi. No "n". (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
(...) I suppose it is obvious to everyone except Scott, but I'm not defending U.S. actions to any particular degree, I'm just objecting to Scott's axe-grinding and one-sided presentations. And I'm a liberal! I hate Bush. I don't like Israel's (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) I agree!! Dave K -who is making his manilla folder bigger by the minute! (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
(...) If you're a Tymbrini, there's got to be a practical joke coming here soon before we get to the denoument of this thread. :-) I can hardly wait! Speaking of practical jokes, did you ever notice that "Tymbrini" contains "Brin"? That has to have (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
(...) Notice how you never answer questions? That you just shift to a new attack? Iraq is not a destablizing force? Just say yes or no for once, and *then* append your explanations instead of this constant dodging. (...) Actually, yes, but not as (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
(...) Hey, "He who mentions Hitler first has lost the argument". Go right ahead! :-) Scott, c'mon. Stop and look at your answer. Here I accuse you of grinding an axe against the United States, and all you do is try to sharpen it further. Who do you (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) You zany understator! Ignoring for a moment the question of the polling machines (ie, modern, well-maintained machines in largely republican districts and archaic, run-down machines in largely democratic districts) I don't have the info in (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
(...) It all boils down to how many lives would have been saved/lost, and what value you put on them. If OBL comes back to annoy us, that will have to be put in the equation too. As will any moderate Muslim backlash. How many Afghan lives is 1 (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) Whoa, calm your jets there Chris--my whole post was rather in a humourous vein and was light hearted... I know your issues for your fractured voting system. I seem to recall that after the Florida fiasco, that someone went back and recounted, (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) How so? There was an election, the results were certified, challenged in court, and allowed to let stand. You may not agree with all the various court decisions made by various courts(1) but it's a bit of a stretch to say he was appointed, ne? (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) Depends how he handles Desert Storm II; the first propaganda exercise didn't win a re-election for Dad (though the rest of his cabinet was reinstated in 2000, of course). Here's a puzzle for the Constitutionally-aware among us: Since W was (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) That, and that this was apparently the action of a local law enforcement officer... (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) "Another term"?!? We didn't even vote him in for a SINGLE term! Dave! Comin' at ya from behind the chain link fence! (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) You aren't listening! We didn't vote him in in the first place. Surely in his current position, he will be able to rig the vote using even more convincing tactics. We'll have him for _at least_ another four years. (I wonder how much republican (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
(...) danger (...) about? (...) troops. (...) I wanted to insert a comment. I'm agreeing with Bruce by and large in this thread (because he doesn't _at all_ seem to be defending the US' naughtiness) but on this one point, I knew exactly what Scott (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) btw, if I haven't said it yet... I do hope that you and your fellow citizens do not vote this person in for another term. Yeah, you're stuck with 'im for another few years but then "vote the incompotent iggit outta office!!--send 'im (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) Ship 'em to Canada--we have folks who throw pies 'n stuff into the faces of our politicians, 'specially the PM :) Signs--baah! I'd have put a banner across the street! ;) Reading thru these two articles, looks like the police chief is falling (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(URL) a followup here and elsewhere: (URL) suppose that the sign-carriers can take comfort in the fact that at least they weren't shipped to Cuba... Dave! (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
(...) ...for how much of his track record did he have the support of the ‘West’? Did we act when he started gassing his own people? Was Bush Sr not willing to let his invasion of Q8 go with only mild rumblings until Thatcher convinced him (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
(...) Shall I compare Bush to Hitler? The fact that some of what Bush Jr suggests the USA should do is against international law should be enough. (...) I’ll tell you what, you show me which facts you think I am omitting. (...) You mean I did not (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Who has the biggest gun, perhaps? Cheers Richie (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(...) "Logic" classes. It badly plagiarizes the popular but flawed "justified true belief" definition for knowledge, Venn diagrams which bastardize the law of excluded middle, and that stupid verse about the bear dancing. It shows a distaste for the (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) I'm not sure what the greater crime is; the fact that they happily relinquished a civil liberty, or the fact that they are not likely going to get it back. (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) One would hope that these outlandish drug laws might be coming to an end... (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2nd Amendment -- Bare Bones
|
|
(...) Well, perhaps there is no resolution -- we certainly have more than one instance of bad law, bad stare decisis, coming down from the high court...and it does annoy. The court has, in particular, been guilty of making bad law that is in the way (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom in America (The Chicago 8)
|
|
(...) Wow, I didn't know any of that, thanks for sharing and for providing those spring-board links. (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(...) Not that ambiguous I'd hoped. I was just being evil. In part, I quoted something from the last day or so of this newsgroup's postings -- I'd not want to call it out in particular beyond what I have done. In the main, I think your purpose and (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | My3ers Briggs chatter (was Re: Is this)
|
|
If you have questions about the test, READ THE BOOK it was originally published in, or one of the others (see note). Go to a library. It's good for you. The terms used in the test are defined in the book. The type indicator is not a general theory (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(...) Agree. I can see someone looking at the example with the company buying the half-million dollar purchase, commenting on how obviously absurd it was to consider it "reasonable", and then going ahead and making the same mistake without a 2nd (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | A bounty on spammers
|
|
(URL) like this idea (without having analysed it very closely, it may have holes). (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(...) But not always, regrettably. Yes, I agree. It is good to be able to remind people that debate involves reason or it isn't debate. Interesting discussion perhaps but not debate. We have a number of high quality debaters here and I think we all (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2nd Amendment -- Bare Bones
|
|
(...) Heh. I think that this is the exact crux of the problem. I confess that I am not as well-read on this subject as my peers here, but a lot of what I've read identifies the first clause of the amendment as the vital part. I can't get too deep (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(...) You know, I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic here, or not. Certainly mocking, but your target is ambiguous. If you honestly feel the link I posted is worse than useless, why not just say so? James (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(...) What? I don't get it. So, like a chess game, after a certain number of similar moves, it must end. I'm done here. O wait, you mean I wasn't playing chess? It wasn't clever or interesting? It wasn't even a stalemate? I don't even know what I am (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 2nd Amendment -- Bare Bones
|
|
Here is the quote part: "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." This could just as easily read: Because a free state must protect itself (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(...) It makes a handy and compelling virtual stick to beat unreasonable people with? And at times, pretty much everyone in here is guilty of unreasoning. Certainly the strong disconnect between reasons and conclusions has been observed here, in (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
