 | | 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)
|
