 | | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) No we are talking about legal marriages. That is very much the jurisdiction of the first amendment. (...) The silly notion that Christianity is somehow superior to our government and other religions. (...) Well you were talking about legal (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Have you EVER EVEN READ the HOLY BIBLE, John? I'm just going to cut and paste biblical cites from previous posts in this forum. I mean, why waste too much time on the usual John Neal foolishness? (URL) Sadly, many faiths do suborn the use of (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) The ACLU agrees ideologically with Oliver North? -->Bruce<-- (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
|
(...) I would add to that the observation that his apology was also an oddly flaccid non-denial denial. He didn't say "I apologize for grabbing these 15+ women, which was wrong of me to do." Instead, he said, "I apologize if I offended anyone," (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Not applicable, Mike. We are talking about civil unions here. (...) Really? How so? (...) But don't you see? This is what I am talking about! I am talking about social mores, culture, values. (...) I think you are confused in this assessment. (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
|
(...) As for the threat of terror (imminent or otherwise), this is what I genuinely believe: I have no doubt that if SH had biological, chemical or nuclear WMDs at his disposal, he eventually would have made them available to terrorists such as OBL (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
|
(...) Arnold claims in one breath that he does not deny all the stories about grabbing and immediately continues that "this is not (him)." Well, if he admits he did it, then it is him. What is this fairy tale that it isn't. He wants to imply that (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
|
(...) Let it, and let him address each one. I have a feeling that after tomorrow, the issue will become mute (sic), because most of the allegations are beyond the statute of limitations (so at best they would get an apologize which he has already (...) (21 years ago, 6-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
|
(...) A cute answer (heck, you got me to laugh with you!), but it doesn't deal with the substance of the claims. I think we are up to 15 accusers, a number that will no doubt grow. (...) Of course the timing is suspect. Then again, sometimes it (...) (21 years ago, 6-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
Go Mike, go!!! A very reasonable and very american approach to the issues raised by John Neal. This is what it should all be about, all of us defending each other's right to liberty in the manner we choose to express it. I bow low to your greater (...) (21 years ago, 6-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
