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 / *17901 (-20)
  Re: Idealism vs Realism?
 
(...) I don't know that they are of less concern but rather at the oppisite end of the spectrum. I was more concerned with the discription than the conclusions the author drew. (...) guns. (...) Well I have the silly notion that the United Nations (...) (22 years ago, 28-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Idealism vs Realism?
 
(...) Well in my local newspapers it is easy to find liberal propaganda, so reading aritcles full of conservative propaganda (which seems much harder to find) is good for balace. -Mike Petrucelli (22 years ago, 28-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Idealism vs Realism?
 
(...) think there are *some* of the ivory tower types that the author suggests, but they are certainly of less concern than people in the privileged Bush mold. Being privileged because of education is not that same as being privileged because of (...) (22 years ago, 28-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Idealism vs Realism?
 
Thanks Mike. Interesting article. That source has a lot of columnists (1), here's another one: (URL) a perspective on how to decide whether someone stands trial in civilian court, stands trial before a military tribunal, or just gets locked up (...) (22 years ago, 28-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Idealism vs Realism?
 
Well kind of anyway. I don't really agree with everything in this article but most of it seems right on to me. (URL) is an opinion peice written by Thomas Sowell. As of posting the link refers to the September 18, 2002 article. Agree or disagree it (...) (22 years ago, 28-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
 
(...) the (...) The fact that someone had their fundamental rights of; freedom of speech, freedom to peacefully assemble, and freedom to peacefully protest, and there was no public outcry. There was no major news coverage. It is just disgusting. (...) (22 years ago, 28-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
 
(...) So you *would* bother to attack somebody? I wouldn't, so yes, we are in disagreement. So much for your holier than thou stance. (and by "bother" it was pretty darn clear I was refering to attacking Iraq, so let me anticipate your mindless (...) (22 years ago, 28-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
 
(...) So, I seem to have missed the explanation of what exactly angered you about the subject? I thought it was a good pointer. Chris (22 years ago, 27-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
 
(...) was (...) Yes it was, but I am rather tired of hearing the Democratic propaganda that Gore won the popular vote. Shouldn't we be worring about the Republican propaganda that Bush was legitimately elected? See there is a paradox if I ever saw (...) (22 years ago, 27-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
 
(...) What part of this is becoming a Monty Python routine didn't you understand? The automatic gainsaying of whatever the other person said isn't an argument. You offer no support for your statements, while you leave support for mine right there (I (...) (22 years ago, 27-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
 
(...) I am. Didn't you get the memo? Dave! (22 years ago, 27-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
 
(...) That's actually my stance as well, but I didn't all my facts straight before posting, so I figured I'd simply address the logical problems of Mike's assertion. Michael Moore, who admittedly sometimes clings too dearly to erroneous information, (...) (22 years ago, 27-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
 
(...) Okay, so it's redundant. I just like the tongue-twister aspects, as Larry noted. :-) Bruce (22 years ago, 27-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: I point out that Scott meets everything with a new attack, and he proves me right yet again
 
(...) Hey, Ill submit to judgment by my peers. Maybe we should run a "Who is the most self-righteous" poll? ;-) Bruce (22 years ago, 27-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
 
(...) How could it ever be otherwise? Who is actually righteous? =) -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 27-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
 
(...) Hmmm, I can't say that I think it was even close. The election was stolen pure and simple. We are no longer the country we think we are, and we probably haven't been for quite some time. I know -- I keep trying to be optimistic that things (...) (22 years ago, 27-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
 
(...) I specifically said I don't agree with Bush's unilateral outlook. I'm critical of your axe-grinding, slanted presentations, and sanctimonious self-righteousness, but not always with your actual positions. Bruce (22 years ago, 27-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
 
(...) Here's the snopes link: (URL) Dave! (22 years ago, 27-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
 
(...) What do you mean? I think you might mean that I am more concerned with the fate of Americans at war than others. If that's right, then I guess I do agree. Not so much on a philosophical level as on a gut reaction level. One random stranger is (...) (22 years ago, 27-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
 
(...) You are misrepresenting me. (...) I think you are wrong to feel safer. (...) Have I ever said they should be left in place? (...) No. Did I say that? (...) I'm not avoiding anything, you are jumping to conclusions and putting words in my (...) (22 years ago, 27-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