 | | Re: More of the Usual Lies
|
|
(...) Why stop there? Why not just abandon all pretense and elect Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz or Salem bin Laden? On the other hand, such legislation would enable Jennifer Granholm to run. You know, one thing that embarrasses me terribly as an American is (...) (21 years ago, 10-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More of the Usual Lies
|
|
(...) Dude, I said maybe... ;) -- Hop-Frog (21 years ago, 10-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: More of the Usual Lies
|
|
(...) That's a good point. There is that law saing only American born peeps can be president. Is that a good thing? Overall, I guess--it would prevent some charismatic foreigner from becoming president and screwing things over. Though to be said, it (...) (21 years ago, 10-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More of the Usual Lies
|
|
Under CURRENT law, Ahnold can't become president, right? He is foreign born. Not that that will stop him - someone else is currently trying to change that (probably specifically FOR him)... (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home (21 years ago, 10-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More of the Usual Lies
|
|
Urp, dangling referent! (...) The "They" referred to in this footnote are the Saudis, not those TimeWarner folks behind TIME magazine. Whether TTWFBTM wish us well or not is an exercise left to the reader. :-) I certainly have my views, but in the (...) (21 years ago, 10-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More of the Usual Lies
|
|
(...) I've always supported Michael Moore despite the somewhat shaky documentation he often provides for his arguments and the somewhat hasty conclusions he often draws from them, but I'm happy to have been wrong about the above point. Michael Moore (...) (21 years ago, 10-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: More of the Usual Lies
|
|
(...) With him so far.... (...) This was the part where I thought he veered off into foaming a bit.. (...) Don't you just hate it when people who clearly are weasely lying sniveling gits(1) might actually be right about just about everything they (...) (21 years ago, 10-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More of the Usual Lies
|
|
(...) Old, but extremely important news for most U.S. idiots. (...) Not new, important. (...) The case has not yet really been made against OBL -- of course, he has also vanished without a trace. Maybe they never really wanted to "get him" in the (...) (21 years ago, 10-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: More of the Usual Lies
|
|
(...) I know that MM isn't held with much credbility in these here circles, but 'Dude, where's my country?' may hopefully restore some... (URL) which questions are asked and researched-- " 1. Is it true that the Bin Ladens have had business (...) (21 years ago, 10-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More of the Usual Lies
|
|
More of the lies in detail... Claims vs. Facts: President Bush's New Hampshire Speech to Air National Guard Reservists (URL) WMD IN IRAQ claim: "Since the liberation of Iraq, our investigators have found evidence of a clandestine network of (...) (21 years ago, 10-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
