 | | Re: Finally--a use of public funding that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) See my other reply to you. (...) Thanks for clearing that up. I really appreciate it. (...) I'm condemning them for their arrogance, not their education! It takes an arrogant person to say that we all must have toilets that flush no more than (...) (21 years ago, 19-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally--a use of public funding that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) Showing that they have an agenda: what is their comparable study on the psychological causes of liberalism? It starts from an inferred premise that liberalism is simply right, and there must be deficiencies in conservatives to make them (...) (21 years ago, 19-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally--a use of public funding that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) For the last time, can we lay this red herring to rest? The issue is not "what does 'is' mean in casual parlance?" but rather "what is the implication of 'is' according to the accepted and rigid strictures of legal discourse as established in (...) (21 years ago, 19-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally--a use of public funding that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) Never meant to imply that it excluded anyone else. I tend to lean towards libertarianism, and there go I but for a couple of reservations. First, I can't stomach the de-criminalize all drugs argument. Some drugs are too bad (harmful to health) (...) (21 years ago, 19-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally--a use of public funding that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) First of all, you're inferring an underlying agenda simply because you don't like the results of the study. To verify the presence of an agenda, you have to do more than simply object to the findings. Secondly, where in the article to you see (...) (21 years ago, 19-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally--a use of public funding that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) I think the belief in the 'sacredness of human life' applies to more than conservatives' I've been told that I'm a Canadian Liberal, but I 'believe' in the sacredness of life. Whether the other points are 'just conservative', i.e. smaller (...) (21 years ago, 19-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally--a use of public funding that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) I love the part where Hitler and Mussolini are termed conservatives. They believed in the cornerstones of conservatism, smaller government, free markets, less regulation, the sacredness of human life, etc. That just shows the agenda behind the (...) (21 years ago, 19-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsbits: CA Recall and IMF-Argentina Negotiations
|
|
(...) True, but it's very difficult to refute Goldberg's claims in the book. He makes several good points, such as: 1) Why conservatives are always labelled and liberals are not, e.g., why it's always "conservative" Antonin Scalia but never (...) (21 years ago, 19-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 25 things we know now...
|
|
Oh, as an aside, I'm going to quantify it every time-- Dubya the moron... Dubya the moron... Actually that kinda works... comes off smooth to the typing and smooth to the saying... Dubya the moron... Who's that knocking at my door? Dave K (21 years ago, 19-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 25 things we know now...
|
|
Right from DU-- (URL) of the 25 things listed, all of which are scary enuf... For the first time *ever*, I'm glad y'all have yer guns in yer house--when the next election happens, and y'all come to the realization that Dubya the moron bamboozled the (...) (21 years ago, 19-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
