 | | Impeach Bush now
|
|
Impeach Bush now Unmasking a CIA agent is bad, lying to Congress worse. With each U.S. death in Iraq, the case against the President grows stronger, says JOHN MacARTHUR (URL) Now that the U.S. government's chief weapons inspector in Iraq has, in (...) (21 years ago, 9-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | More of the Usual Lies
|
|
Bush hits back at Iraq critics (URL) Mr Bush's speech was part of a new White House public relations offensive aimed at countering growing criticism of US policy in post-war Iraq, where US forces are coming under fire daily and suffering mounting (...) (21 years ago, 9-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) We are the chorus, and we agree, we agree, we agree, we agree - Bored of the Rings (...) No, we dismiss the anonymous simply because they are anonymous. I don't have a clue as to who they are. I at least knew beforehand who Arnold was, I could (...) (21 years ago, 9-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote: Once again, you're forgetting my prohibition against posting except when you agree with me. I just don't understand you sometimes. (...) There's a difference, I think, between ignoring anonymous (...) (21 years ago, 9-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) Honestly, I dismissed most of them for pretty much the same reason - I didn't know their name simply because they were not seriously running for governor. And let's add to that I dismissed the names that were similiar to better known people (...) (21 years ago, 9-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) Absolute political unknown. I had presumed that you would be able to identify the term within the context of the discussion, but I see that I am in error. You dismissed a range of other candidates just because you didn't know their names. This (...) (21 years ago, 9-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
I think its all very funny but then I don't live in CA Tim (21 years ago, 9-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) "Absolute unknown" can take on a lot of possibilities. If you mean unknown to the public in general then Arnold not an "absolute unknown". I have my sample ballot in front of me right now and am going down the list to see which names I (...) (21 years ago, 9-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) Character flaws? If true, the actions described are generally in the way of sexual assault. I might have a bad temper -- yeah, that's bad. But if I grope your wife, daughter, brother, son, or even you -- I've probably committed a crime! (...) (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) Okay, answer me this - would you assign 3 reporters to investigate bad temper when everyone involved is in one spot, or 3 reporters to investigate alleged criminal transgressions with the witnesses scattered about? Which is newsworthy? Davis (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) Bruce, 4 things: 1. The LA Times devoted 3 reporters for 7 weeks to investigate the character of one of the candidates, while ignoring any character issues on the other candidates. Gray Davis, for instance, is said to have a bad temper and has (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) You've misinterpreted my intent, so I'll restate it: I find your choice "to try someone else" to be insufficient cause for an informed citizen to cast a ballot for one canditate in preference to another. Would you care to elaborate on your (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) Alright, let's run this the other way. Another recall happens, only this time it is Arnie. 51% vote yes. 49% vote no. So, in fact, only 51% get to determine who the new governor is. And you can bet that most of that 49% who don't get to vote (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) I'll just take that as another sacarasm. (...) Again, I'm going to note Hardball on MSNBC. Arnorld has something no one else up there showed- charasima! If there is one thing I have seen all so often in this life (I was one of those teens who (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) I'll just take that as a scarcasm. (...) Hold on there as second! I was watching Hardball on MSNBC last night and people on the show brought up some very important points. One that caught my attention was IF there was a run off between (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) I am all in favor of saving the $$$. It makes a little more sense to say "yes, recall him, and replace him with X", than to say "no, do not recall him, but in the event he gets recalled, replace him with X". Maybe it is because it appears that (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) Arnold admits to some of the charges and is a "good" guy and is "slimed"? How can he be slimed if he issues an apology, and a weak, vague one at that? Sounds more like it's the Times that is being slimed. (...) This really has nothing to do (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
Recall - NO Replace - Badi Badiozamani (Local man, went to school with his daughter.) Prop 53 - NO Prop 54 - NO Matt (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) I had a pain in my chest, and I was sick of all the usual doctors telling me that it was lung cancer, so I went with my instinct and consulted a wealthy actor rather than someone with experience in treating my ailment. I just wanted to try (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
Dear California: You have my sincere sympathy (but then, you would have had that no matter who "won", just about)... (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Israel is Losing
|
|
(...) Neither can I. I don't think it is 'western' culture thing either, after all if you've already got a culture why would you need to adopt someone else's. If you go back in history then all the 'great civilisations' were either created through (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
Recall - Oh heck YES Replace with - The govenator Prop 53 - Yes Prop 54 - Yes as I type this post Davis is conceding this election, score one for the good guys! and shame on you LA Times, your slime campaign failed. I just wanted to post on prop 54, (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) Gee, that's a fairly pathetic rationale in my view. Is that the way you keep track of your bank account -- instinct? Arnold is worse than business as usual. He is a puppet backed all the way from D.C. to Enron. Didn't you know? Always follow (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. God knows why!
|
|
The point to the slight subject change is that one minute into the counting, the networks are already declaring that everything is decided. God, I despise network news: Don't touch that dial - we are gonna skip the story and tell you the (projected, (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) Instinct. It's worked many times for me before. Ok, before you hit me with a "Get real!" remark I was just plain sick of the usual politicians. I just wanted to try someone else. (...) I was shown the blank side and so was the guy who asked me (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) Me too. Recall: Yes Replacement: McClintock -- this election is all about the state economy and he's the only one who has had direct answers to every question about the economy. 53: No. Dumb idea. This would just further tie the hands of any (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Israel is Losing
|
|
(...) I don't mean to be flip about this very serious issue, but such is the nature of conquest. People of other cultures may not automatically see the advantages of another way of life -- in fact those supposed advantages may be mitigated by (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) What does voting "no" have to do with it? What are you trying to say - only those who vote "yes" get to vote for the replacement, or do you really like to see another $40 million spent on a second election to resolve the recall if it is a (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Israel is Losing
|
|
I found this interesting... (URL) not sure I agree with this, viscerally... "The only places where a Western culture has successfully transplanted itself are those where great population pressure and genocidal methods were used to extirpate the (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) I guess Kermit was correct after all-- it's not easy being green! And somebody should forward that data to UPS;-) JOHN (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) This strikes me as weird. It's as if one is able to physically hedge their vote. If one votes for "no" recall, how is it that one is able to cast a hypothetical vote? (...) Hmmm... It has intringe, sex, betrayal, sex, gambling, sex, sex, (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) Green Bionicle is "underloved" (1), I hear, so yaay for Peter I guess. 1 - There are always 6 different figures in each of the waves, and each one is a different color... Supposedly Red always sells out first (across all the lines so far, (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) 53 - NO 54 - NO Recall - NO Replacement - Peter Camejo, that Green Bionicle lover Hanging chads - NO, first time I ever bothered to check "I Voted" sticker - NO I had headed out to the polls feeling kinda disenfranchised-- no one ever pleaded (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) Recall: no. Misuse of the recall procedure. Replace with: Peter Camejo (Green Party, No. 65 on the ballot) 53: No 54: No (...) No substance, all style. Doubt me? Look at how you refer to Arnold. :-) Here's my summation of Things to Come: (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) "you've seen one stolen election, you've seen them all" ??? I dunno, that was just a guess (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) Wishful thinking--only 1 year with Dubya instead of 3... Dave K (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) Whoops! That should be 2000, instead of 2002. What the heck was I thinking? Dave! (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) Out of curiosity, what led you to conclude that Arnold was the best qualified candidate to head the world's fifth-largest economy? (...) One reason is that this is a potential violation of voter privacy. Another reason was that this courteous (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | "Fair and balanced" and, well, they never claimed to be accurate...
|
|
(URL) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
I just got my "I Voted" sticker. Well, my vote has been made and I'll pass them along. I would like to hear from the rest of LUGNET's Californians. Recall- YES. Replace with- "The Terminator" Prop 53- YES Prop 54- NO Prop 53 and 54 didn't get all (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
|
(...) This kind of nonsense is precisely why its not worth discussing anything with you. I can't even call it a debate if your replies are going to be this moronic. You don't have any logic behind your position, you just keep asking the same (...) (21 years ago, 6-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
|
(...) If Democrats has sufficient sway in Congress, there would certainly be an independent counsel investigating the run-up to the war (a la Ken Starr/Whitewater), but Republican lock-steppers have resisted any efforts in this regard. Likewise, the (...) (21 years ago, 6-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
snip (...) The first phrase of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,..." (...) I consider myself a Christian and I am sick of hearing this nonsense. (...) (...) (21 years ago, 6-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
|
(...) You can link until the cows come home, but it really proves nothing. Nada. The best you can hope for is that Bush believed intelligence that suggested that WMD still existed (assuming that they indeed don't) and he was wrong. Nobody can prove (...) (21 years ago, 6-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Speaking of the recall...
|
|
(...) Should I be impressed that this candidate likes LEGO, afraid that he likes the wrong kind, or annoyed that this reference is pandering to the audience or ?? (21 years ago, 6-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Speaking of the recall...
|
|
..the Sacramento NBC affiliate did short profiles of the major California gubernatorial candidates tonight. The Peter Camejo (Green Party) profile began with Mr. Camejo holding his grandson and saying to him, "You want to talk about Bionicles?" Hmm, (...) (21 years ago, 6-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Can't (was Re: LET IT DIE)
|
|
(...) See? That's precisely the wrong attitude to take. Speaking for myself, I would very much like to see your future creations and CAD renders. I looked at all the renders in the current thread and enjoyed them very much -- I also happen to be (...) (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | this belongs in ".trains" (was "LET IT DIE")
|
|
(Setting "follow-up"...) (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.cad, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | this belongs in ".trains" (was "Moving without context")
|
|
(Setting "follow-up"...) (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.cad, lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving without context
|
|
(...) Were we reading the same post? I didn't see that in Larry's response at all. We've had "fantasy trains" in .trains before and they were well received. It is very easy to get the wrong impression from one line of text. (...) Yes, and that goes (...) (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.cad, lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | LET IT DIE
|
|
OK, I already stated that I wish I never posted in the first place, and I regret my rant ten-fold now. The train models are not my best work by far. Thus, I'm not really sure why I bothered to mention work I didn't put my best effort into. I think I (...) (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.cad, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving without context
|
|
(...) Because Lar mentioned the space newsgroup in a possibly disparaging manner and I didn't want to comment on it without also x-posting it to the right newgroup. It seemed the fair thing to do. Otherwise it would have felt like talking about a (...) (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.cad, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving without context
|
|
(...) In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote: (...) OK, everyone. This wasn't my intent. I didn't want anyone to look bad. I didn't want to push anyone's arguments into another thread to make them seem unimportant. I didn't realize that moving this (...) (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.cad, lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving without context
|
|
Why did this thread get cross posted to .space? The original post was in Trains and CAD. -Grand Admiral (URL) (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.cad, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Newsbits from yesterday
|
|
Study: Misperceptions About Iraq War Contributed to Support For It (URL) The three common mistaken impressions are that: U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There's clear evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein worked closely (...) (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving without context
|
|
(...) Yeah, I agree. People are a little too quick to move things over into off-topic without really having a reason for doing so. Anyway, I apologize for thinking it was you, Lar. I didn't follow the thread closely enough to see that it was (...) (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.cad, lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
|
(...) Just because you ask this question repetitiously doesn't mean it hasn't been answered already, either directly or by a link to an article somewhere. I have answered this question multiple times in this forum before it was asked by you. And (...) (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Moving without context
|
|
(...) So why move it? I did not realise it had been moved till after I responded to the post, had I seen that Tony was trying to move it I would have set it back. I think it was totally inappropriate to move it, actually, and especially in what is a (...) (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.cad, lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
|
(...) So Liberals shouldn't criticize his behavior lest they politically incorrectly "judge" the morays of another culture;-) As for the Young Republican meetings-- I doubt he started attending them before his first million earned;-) (...) The (...) (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
|
(...) Sorry, I don't buy it. (...) Precisely point out Bush's "lie" about Iraq. Be prepared to show that he knowingly and deliberately, and also specifically (I want quotations) misinformed. (...) I don't know what to make of the media in (...) (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun Debate: No Proof for Either Side!
|
|
(...) Let's get something clear, the British established slavery, not America. The same British who founded (ummm) stole Canada. -->Bruce<-- League of Green-Eyed Devil's Advocates (well, okay, they idiotically kept it, but they ain't my political (...) (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
|
(...) According to one guy who witnessed one of Arnold's excesses, Arnold said that's how he did it in Austria, so Hollywood has nothing to do with it (in fact, most of these incidents date to his pre-Hollywood period - maybe he learned them at (...) (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun Debate: No Proof for Either Side!
|
|
(...) Your comment is off-topic in this thread, but perfect for this forum...maybe you could start a thread on slavery. But first read Madison's notes on the convention -- slavery did not easily get a pass. And the Civil War is proof of that fact. (...) (21 years ago, 4-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
|
(...) Let's for a moment assume these women are being 100% honest. The difference between coming forward back then vs. now is maybe the difference of having a bad momentary encounter vs. the bad guy becoming your elected representative. Think about (...) (21 years ago, 4-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun Debate: No Proof for Either Side!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote: <snip> (...) The logic of your political forebearers included slavery. Dave K (21 years ago, 4-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Flaming Smokestacks, Batman! (was Re: Introducing JetRed)
|
|
(...) Yep. Spoke to this already. .Trains is a big place. (...) Larry, I'm sorry for any miscommunication. My wish that you have a good day was sincere, not out of any hidden message that I thought you were grumpy. As it was, I was open about what I (...) (21 years ago, 4-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Flaming Smokestacks, Batman! (was Re: Introducing JetRed)
|
|
(...) Hop-Frog, I moved it, because I didn't think of that, and because it wasn't really about trains. But you're right about appropriate behavior being discussed in the given newsgroup - the reason for my original reply. Thank you for your (...) (21 years ago, 4-Oct-03, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.cad, lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote: (snip) (...) Though I do not condone the "groping" of women, I think his behavior in the context of Hollyweird is probably par for the course. What is interesting to me is that these women (some (...) (21 years ago, 4-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Flaming Smokestacks, Batman! (was Re: Introducing JetRed)
|
|
(...) Of course they do. People can do and feel anything they want. Is that what you tell your wife when she is annoyed with you -- that she doesn't have the right to feel as she does? I understand that your claim is that insult was not intended, (...) (21 years ago, 4-Oct-03, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.cad, lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Flaming Smokestacks, Batman! (was Re: Introducing JetRed)
|
|
(...) I reread my original reply. I didn't see it. I know my intent and I know it wasn't intended. In general, you (as a generic reader) don't have the right not to be insulted by what other people write. But if it came across that way to a lot of (...) (21 years ago, 4-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Gun Debate: No Proof for Either Side!
|
|
Do gun laws prevent violence? Health officials don't know (URL) ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) --A sweeping federal review of the nation's gun control laws -- including mandatory waiting periods and bans on certain weapons -- found no proof such measures (...) (21 years ago, 4-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
|
(...) Eeeet izzz trash poh-lo-teecs! Und I vish to ahh-poh-lo-gize to the vemmen I hoff fon-dohld. Sieg Heil, mein Fuhrer! I can valk! Heck, even Ahhhnuld has a Strangelovian two-minded reaction to the charges (and I got to sneak in an oblique (...) (21 years ago, 4-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
|
Scott: I might be one of the few people that might respond to this, so I will. But in reality this subject is just a sideshow. Sadly, this probably has at least a little to do with the way many Californians are going to vote the way they will next (...) (21 years ago, 4-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | The partisian trap in California
|
|
I haven't seen this discussed here so I thought I would bring it up. On Wednesday the LA Times launched a huge hit piece against Schwarzenegger, with four negative articles including a front page story about Arnold's alleged indiscressions. It (...) (21 years ago, 3-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: No Smoking Gun, No Iminant Threat.... and No Surprise?
|
|
(...) Love the sinner, hate the sin. ;) Scott A (...) (21 years ago, 3-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: No Smoking Gun, No Iminant Threat.... and No Surprise?
|
|
(...) Too true. Billions down the hole, and the net result of this "cowboy diplomacy" is that everyone hates the U.S. as never before. Wonderful! -- Hop-Frog (21 years ago, 3-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Intercepted WMDs from Iraq?
|
|
(...) If true, I'd expect lots of snarling "conservatives" would have jammed it down our throats by now. It's just a case of wishful thinking (on your part). ;) Scott A Have you had a look at Arthurs Seat Yet? (2 URLs) (...) (21 years ago, 3-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Intercepted WMDs from Iraq?
|
|
(...) The article stated: "It did not say when or how the smugglers entered Kuwait or when they were arrested." So basically, these are weapons in Kuwait. Yeah, I guess the U.S. is not completely in bed with Kuwait. The rest is speculative as far as (...) (21 years ago, 3-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | No Smoking Gun, No Iminant Threat.... and No Surprise?
|
|
No Smoking Gun, No Imminent Threat.... and No Surprise? My personal view on SH before we bombed him was that: He probably did have some form of WoMD. He would use them if threatened. He did not represent an imminent threat to the region or the (...) (21 years ago, 3-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Intercepted WMDs from Iraq?
|
|
(...) At this point a lot of people are in "don't cry wolf with me any more" mode... I know I am. We know Saddam had WMD at some point, that's not in dispute, he used them on his own people. We know Saddam was a very very bad man, that's not in (...) (21 years ago, 3-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Intercepted WMDs from Iraq?
|
|
(URL) Has anyone else heard of this story? If true, it would be big news IMO-- I wonder why it hasn't been picked up (by conservatives; I know why liberals might want to ignore it;-) JOHN (21 years ago, 3-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Giant Sucking Sound
|
|
(...) The bigger question is: does free trade, or a free market, really exist in the first place? My answer is: "No." As a consequence of that, everything can be seen as pandering to a particular interest group. Even if we had a truly and perfectly (...) (21 years ago, 2-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Giant Sucking Sound
|
|
From USA Today: (URL) President Bush (news - web sites) has departed from the Republican Party's deep-seated belief that open markets lead to stronger economies, more jobs and higher living standards. Last year, his shortsighted moves to raise (...) (21 years ago, 2-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Next step... (was Re: Interesting idea...?!)
|
|
(...) Why don't they move to Iraq? The government is so small there these days as to be completely nonexistent. Plus, the line about "not to invade, but to restore liberty" would be perfectly in line with the stated goals of the Shrub (...) (21 years ago, 1-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Next step... (was Re: Interesting idea...?!)
|
|
(...) The envelope please. And, the winning state (or losing depending on your outlook) is: Ne Hampshire! Live free or die Libertarian! "Where not here to invade and take over, but to restore liberty," said one spokesperson. In other words: take (...) (21 years ago, 1-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Next step... (was Re: Interesting idea...?!)
|
|
(...) also, but it's such a beautiful place too. Its one of my favorite states along interstate 80. Anyway, I haven't promised anyone anything -- but if the Libertarian party takes over I might just move there. It won't be worse than Shrub et al (...) (21 years ago, 1-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Next step... (was Re: Interesting idea...?!)
|
|
(...) (URL) Dave! (21 years ago, 1-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Al-qaida/Iraq link, or not?
|
|
All hail Governor Bush for coming clean with (URL) this bit> of useful info despite what Cheney was still parroting just days before. And to hear Dubya tell it, he can't understand why a majority of the American people continue to believe that (...) (21 years ago, 1-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Iraqi reconstruction funding
|
|
(...) I like your thinking on this, Lar. I'm with you 100%. Of course, the "powers that be" might have a different view of these ideas. It makes one want to inquire as to their motives, of course. (...) What people? The future consumers of Iraq, you (...) (21 years ago, 1-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Iraqi reconstruction funding
|
|
From: (URL) Bush administration strongly opposes using loans for the Iraqi reconstruction request." Why shouldn't Iraq pay for this, exactly? Take me through this logic again? "It argues that Iraq's $200 billion debt is already more than it can (...) (21 years ago, 1-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
