 | | Reuters: "Oregon County Bans All Marriages - Period"
|
|
I found this interesting... (URL) (21 years ago, 25-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
|
(...) This is just American popular historical fantasy of the sort the Japanese would be proud of. There was nothing indiscriminate about the targetting of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the intent was not taking out factories and infrastructure. (URL) (...) (21 years ago, 25-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
|
(...) I wasn't actually saying that at all, although I'd happily agree that you could a sense of moral equivalence. But I wasn't commenting on your odd morality, or even the American revived doctrine of pre-emptive self-defense. I was simply (...) (21 years ago, 25-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | March Madness?
|
|
I am doing some stretching and flexing in order to prepare for the (URL) Big Decision> Are you ready, Dave!? :-) JOHN (21 years ago, 25-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
|
(...) The nuance is that terrorism is performed by violence exclusively, but you can break an enemy's morale using other tactics. Not to mention a great deal in fighting a war has to do with destroying the opponents' ability to inflict damage on (...) (21 years ago, 24-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
|
"Pedro Silva" <el_gordo@netc.pt> wrote in message news:Hv3IF7.BuF@lugnet.com... (...) old (...) terrorism: "act (...) Hmm, by that definition, almost all acts of war are acts of terrorism. It is not practical in a military action to eliminate all (...) (21 years ago, 24-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
|
(...) All? It's just a wild guess. Of course both sides of a war will present arguments saying they're right, so they won't be of much help. Wars usually begin once conflicting interests can no longer be settled thru diplomatic channels, which are (...) (21 years ago, 24-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Parable ot the Tortured Debtor
|
|
(...) It must be noted, however, that once you draw upon contextual and historical guidelines to interpret an author's work, you are by definition no longer reading the work but are instead infusing it with material external to the work. Even (...) (21 years ago, 24-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
|
Don't make the mistake of assessing this event in isolation. The precedent has already been set; Israel has already apprehended a number of individuals (from Hamas members to Nazi war criminals) and put them on trial. Sharon did this because he does (...) (21 years ago, 24-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Parable ot the Tortured Debtor
|
|
(...) Sure. We would see it as accomplishing several things. In addition to acting as one-time, complete forgiveness (in contrast to repeated, limited sacrifices), more significantly by Christ standing in our place on the cross, we are then able to (...) (21 years ago, 24-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
|
(...) I don't think terrorism is hard to define-- it's just that people use the term incorrectly or indiscriminately and therefore its definition is muddied. Terrorism is the targeted killing of innocent civilians by a person or group in order to (...) (21 years ago, 24-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
|
"Pedro Silva" <el_gordo@netc.pt> wrote in message news:Hv2BF5.vt0@lugnet.com... (...) entity? (...) or (...) but if (...) to act (...) organization that (...) are yes, (...) entity, (...) used (...) metaphor. (...) 19th (...) is no (...) be (...) (...) (21 years ago, 24-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
|
(...) I'll try to answer the best I can, please let me know if anything does not satisfy you entirely; these are purely my *current* answers. (...) I am of the opinion one can not fight a war against a non-territorial entity, but I will admit this (...) (21 years ago, 24-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
|
(...) I agree with the above. However I think that it raises a number of questions. Remember that I don't believe in the initiation of the use of force... but I have questions nonetheless. 1) When exactly is a country in a "state of war" with an (...) (21 years ago, 24-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
|
(...) More BS moral equivalence. (...) Specious. To my knowledge, none of your examples had ever categorically sworn as the foundation of their existence the complete destruction of a particular enemy. Let's cut to the chase, and let me ask you (...) (21 years ago, 23-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
|
(...) An organisation which Israel helped establish as an Islamic alternative to secular groups such as the PLO. (...) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I expect the IDF has killed more babies than Hamas? (...) Q What happens to Israelis who refuse to (...) (21 years ago, 23-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
|
(...) Let's get our perspective correct then (at least mine; I'll let Scott speak for himself). I am presenting the view from the Israeli perspective; it has nothing to do with Bush. In fact, I would criticize the Bush administration for not (...) (21 years ago, 23-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
|
(...) Mmmmm. The same is said of the Israelis. The same was probably said of the Russians, the Japanese, the Catholic Irish, before that the French and the Scots, and an illustrious list back to the Saracens and beyond. No doubt there are some who (...) (21 years ago, 23-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
|
(...) I don't get your logic. If killing him means nothing in the grand scheme of things then why was he killed? In fact, based on your above statement, I'd say that this was less of an act of self defense and more of an act of cold blooded murder. (...) (21 years ago, 23-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
|
(...) I think you and John both subscribe to the 'Dubya Administration' way of twisting what was said. But I can live with that. In no place did I mention my appreciation of this guy. In no place did I say that his deeds were just and that he was (...) (21 years ago, 23-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
|
(...) I have a doubt, then. If he was under Israeli custody prior to 1997, and he was released, doesn't it imply the israelis accepted he was no longer fair game? Or was he released to become fair game? Pedro (21 years ago, 23-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello wrote: (snip) (...) As I mentioned, any Palestinian groups or leaders who shows sympathy or a proclivity to make peace with Israel may well find themselves the enemy of Hamas and thus dead. There is a (...) (21 years ago, 23-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
|
(...) This is laughable, the Palestinian people, who have been known to strap bombs to their bodies and blow themselves up, along with innocent men, women, and children, are going to have more anger. Please tell me how a group of people willing to (...) (21 years ago, 23-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote: (snip) (...) Sometimes it is. Are you suggesting, for example, that the US should not be responding to al-Qaeda lest we really piss them off? Fact is that not responding emboldens terrorists to (...) (21 years ago, 23-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
|
(...) His organization has declared war on Israel. He was a completely legitimate target. (...) I think the Israelis believed that at one time, too, because the fact is that they probably could have snuffed out his pathetic existence any time that (...) (21 years ago, 23-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
|
(...) K, so I care a little bit... Holy idiocy on your part, John! What's that all about? How can you be this obtuse? It doesn't matter what he did before *now* that he died, by the way in a violent fashion, by the hands of the Israelis. Violence (...) (21 years ago, 23-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
|
(...) Just because the man should be dead or the world is better off with him dead doesn't mean Isreal was justified in killing him. In fact I would postulate that this will lead to much more killing that it will prevent. This is why a open policy (...) (21 years ago, 23-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
|
(...) Yeah, the dopes-- killing an old man, and one in a wheelchair to boot! 'Course, that old man did found and lead Hamas, a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of the State of Israel through the targeted killing of, among others, (...) (21 years ago, 23-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
|
(...) It's gotten to the point where I just don't care anymore. Since 9/11, and even before, I got frustrated, angered, incensed, and just downright PO'd about what the various gov'ts, leaders, etc. were doing to each other. Now, finally, after (...) (21 years ago, 23-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
|
(...) I fear "the great Satan" would have supplied them... no doubt as part of the “war on terror”. If Bush was serious about stopping terrorism, he’d have sorted out Israel and Palestine a long time ago. Instead he chose to fuel terrorism by (...) (21 years ago, 23-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Richard "Dick" Clarke... on the BBC
|
|
(...) He claims to have asked for a meeting with Bush 3 days after he came to power. RC wanted to talk about OBL; Bush only wanted to hear about Iraq! (URL) for yourself. In the same BBC interview, he also claims that Rumsfeld wanted to bomb Iraq on (...) (21 years ago, 23-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: FOUND: Weapons of Mass Destruction
|
|
(...) Rubbish. Its all in the spin. Read the article. The dude had been 'discovered' before, there had been a half hearted enquiry that had been dropped for reasons unspecified. Of course the authorities were not 'allowing' them to live in the US. (...) (21 years ago, 23-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
|
Were the AWM's* used US sourced? (*) Air-to-Wheelchair-Missiles Fredrik (21 years ago, 22-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Partial transcript of pretty much every interview with Condoleezza Rice
|
|
(...) Indeed. Plagiarism is not only dishonest, it betrays the trust of this community and it is against the terms of this site if it infringes copyright restrictions. Scott A (21 years ago, 22-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Richard Clarke
|
|
(...) Strange that O'Neil also said that Bush took his eye off the ball. (...) Clarke is clear that he thought OBL was a problem... Bush did not want to hear. (...) That does not answer my point... is throw mud all you can do? (...) Anything to say? (...) (21 years ago, 22-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: FOUND: Weapons of Mass Destruction
|
|
(...) But if they'd posed a threat to, say, Cuba instead of to the United States, would they have been arrested at all? And, anyway, that's not the point. All day, every day, we're bombarded with so-called "breaking news" reports about the latest (...) (21 years ago, 22-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: FOUND: Weapons of Mass Destruction
|
|
(...) First of all, nobody with the knowledge of what they were up to was "allowing" them to live in the US. As soon as they were discovered, they were arrested. (...) Is this last part meant as a joke? Are you inferring some sort of aspersion on (...) (21 years ago, 22-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | FOUND: Weapons of Mass Destruction
|
|
From Dubya's own carefully fact-checked SOTU (URL) address:> As part of the offensive against terror, we are also confronting the regimes that harbor and support terrorists, and could supply them with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. I've (...) (21 years ago, 22-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Richard Clarke
|
|
(...) Not if he is kissing Democrats. (...) More like CYA. (...) That's my point! It was HIS job to get that perception, and way back then! (...) If nothing else he should shut his piehole or take some responsibility instead of trying to profit and (...) (21 years ago, 22-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Richard Clarke
|
|
(...) I think Clarke pre-dates even Clinton; he is not the "kiss & tell" type. Is he not acting in the US's best interests? (...) That would be the same attack you did not know about 2 weeks ago? John Neal: "Nobody perceived OBL as a threat on (...) (21 years ago, 22-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Richard Clarke
|
|
(...) More reason to clean house when a new administration comes in. Got any personal agendas, Mr. Clarke-- such as a book to sell? Why not tell us all you and the Clinton adminstration did after the attack on the (URL) USS Cole>? One could easily (...) (21 years ago, 22-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Richard Clarke
|
|
Richard Clarke (URL) Quotes>: "Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done (...) (21 years ago, 22-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Sheikh Yassin
|
|
Sheikh Yassin Quotes: “Death threats do not frighten us; we are in search of martyrdom.” “In the past we declared a unilateral ceasefire, we gave the Israeli enemy a truce for 50 days, but they did not commit to it even for one day. They continued (...) (21 years ago, 22-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) Well, I thought you were kidding around. Provide a concrete example-- or were you referring to racism? JOHN (21 years ago, 22-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) Doesn't address my point in the slightest. Nothing more than I expected. -->Bruce<-- (21 years ago, 22-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) Okay, this horse is past due for the glue factory, but I just wanted to make this final observation. It isn't any secret that conservatives have lower tolerance level on most issues than liberals do. That's why they are called conservative;-) (...) (21 years ago, 22-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Parable ot the Tortured Debtor
|
|
(...) That makes sense. (...) OK. I don't think I'll ever understand why killing an animal would incline God toward forgiveness. But even taking for granted that that system of atonement exists, I am further completely baffled as to how/why the act (...) (21 years ago, 21-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) No, he gets to be intolerant because he doesn't believe in tolerance - he just doesn't want intolerance of his intolerance, and will pretend that any intolerance of his intolerance is the same as his intolerance itself, and therefore said (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) And I am saying that those that want to be intolerant (read: haters of those different from their own narrow views) have come up with an ego-defense mechanism that tries to equate their intolerance of others as the same as the disapproval of (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) But, you're demanding that Liberals be tolerant of intolerance, so wouldn't you have to tolerate the Liberals' intolerance of intolerance? (...) Are we to understand, then, that you will henceforth be tolerant of homosexuals as well as of (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) Look, all I am saying is that if one is going to preach tolerance (read: pluralists), than be tolerant in all circumstances, not merely when it serves one's agendas. (...) There is no justification for it, except to say that everyone has the (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Partial transcript of pretty much every interview with Condoleezza Rice
|
|
(...) I can't reveal my source without compromising national security. Oh, heck, why not? My source is Robert Novak. Actually, it was my own work, based on an annoying evasive interview with Dr. Rice that I sat through last night, but it mirrors (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Partial transcript of pretty much every interview with Condoleezza Rice
|
|
ROFL. I had no idea you were a comedy writer, Dave! Very nice work, Dave! Or are you not sharing the original source, Dave! You know that'll get you in trouble with certain elements here, Dave! (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Marriage (was: Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee)
|
|
(...) Well, the last time I looked, they're pretty different in most cases. But my point is that the difference between men and women is not central to marriage. Therefore the difference between men and women cannot be used as a gatekeeper criterion (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Marriage (was: Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee)
|
|
(...) Yes but not necessarily relevant. (...) No. It's not at all obvious that is true. You'd have to prove it. But don't bother, because even if it were true, what of it? Marriage != Raising Children Ideal != Only Not Ideal != Should be Forbidden (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) So, you are saying that those that can't stand racists aren't as bad as the actual racists, they are worse. As I said, stupid or self-serving. (...) It is the justification of racism that I am trying to understand (well, I do, it is a game to (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Marriage (was: Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee)
|
|
(...) Don't ask, don't tell;-) But seriously, privacy issues put that tack in irons. (...) If you want to argue that men and women are basically the same, bring it on;-D (...) Specious. You are comparing apples and oranges. Of course I'd never (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Partial transcript of pretty much every interview with Condoleezza Rice
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: (snip) lol IOW, She's got what it takes to be POTUS and will give HRC a run for her money in 2008:-) JOHN (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Marriage (was: Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee)
|
|
(...) I don't think it's so obvious, honestly. If the fundamental criterion for legal marriage is the possibility of childbirth, then non-fertile couples must not be allowed to wed. Similarly, if a wife and husband try unsuccessfully to conceive, (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Partial transcript of pretty much every interview with Condoleezza Rice
|
|
Commentator: Good evening, Dr. Rice. I hope you’re well. Rice: I’m much better, now that brave coalition forces have removed the butcher Saddam Hussein from power. C: How do you respond to concerns about the failure to find any weapons of mass (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Marriage (was: Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee)
|
|
(...) First, I am not saying that 2 men or 2 women can't raise a family. What I am asking is: All things being equal, is it better that a child has a mother? All things being equal, is it better that a child has a father? Each sex is unique, each (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) I fear we are not on the same wavelength here. I think Larry addressed my concern: (URL) private verses public> (...) Well, in the original, the government was involved. From the beginning I posed my question assuming no governmental (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Marriage (was: Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee)
|
|
(...) Why? You keep saying that, but I don't to see *why* it's obvious. Can you spell out the real advantages of 1 man/1 woman? What, exactly, does it have over other unions that makes it the superior way of raising children? My experience with (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Marriage (was: Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee)
|
|
(...) When you speak about the issue in terms of contract recognition, sure it seems obvious. But doesn't this seem painfully obvious as well: men and women are not the same. The are not simply humans with irrelevant, interchangable reproduction (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) Sadly, (and from the perspective of) for the future of the republic, I'm not sure that's really worth being debated either, as it appears to be a settled question that he can make mileage from this issue and a mostly irrelevant question (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote: (snip worthy summation) (...) Agreed. Its validity seems to flow rather directly and consequentially from some deeply enshrined and rather important principles concerning the fundamental rights of (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) Bruce's big joke only gets funnier. Richard Still baldly going... (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) Yes, they do. As long as the forsake any governmental affiliation is strictly adhered to. That's tough to do today though. (...) But LUGNET, being completely privately funded, ought to (under the free association clause) be completely within (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) What does membership in a private club have to do with forcing gays out of their own private property? And, just to address your example, the fictional "Todd" may well have to justify his reason, and to a judge, depending on the Terms of (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) If I am Todd, isn't that my right? Need I justify my reasons? And to whom? (...) I think the ratio is a lot higher for other reasons. I like this (from their web site): (URL) Fetal Rights> You might suppose that the ACLU might be concerned (...) (21 years ago, 18-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) I'd love to know how "crimes against nature" are defined. I assume fertility treatments, contraception, GM crops, etc are permitted in Dayton? Scott A (21 years ago, 18-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) Not the same example. What you want to do is forcibly evict Dave! from Lugnet because he (for the sake of this argument) plays with Brand X, even though he is not doing it on Lugnet. (...) Not doubtful at all - they have defended (...) (21 years ago, 18-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) So I should not be able to form a club that excludes LEGO clone-lovers because I am limiting the freedom of Dave! to becoming a member? (...) Doubtful. But even if they did, on what grounds? (...) It's the big joke-- everybody is intolerant of (...) (21 years ago, 18-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) My "hypothetical" specifically discounted governmental action, which I think we'd all agree needs to affirm and protect the rights of all. JOHN (21 years ago, 18-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) Easily answered: because said bigots are trying to limit the freedom of those that they are bigoted against. If, say, a community that was a majority of Gays attempted to ban Christian fundamentalists from their community ("They aren't wanted (...) (21 years ago, 18-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
I accidentally responded by mail... (...) here) and (...) constantly (...) the (...) People can certainly have their own prejudices, but when they try and pass a law to support their prejudices, then it's fair, and in fact imperative, that people (...) (21 years ago, 18-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) Hmmm, I have to agree with you, Dave! Here is the problem. Okay, so you have a group of bigots. They have every right to be bigotted (let's for the sake of argument forsake any governmental affiliations here) and live in their bigotted world. (...) (21 years ago, 18-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) Haha! The first thought that entered my brain upon reading the above was "Isn't this the place that brought us the Scopes Monkey Trial?" I clicked on the link and sure enough it's the very same county, not just the state. -->Bruce<-- (21 years ago, 18-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(URL) This kind> of progressive wisdom makes me proud to be a citizen of the greatest nation in the country. Dave! (21 years ago, 18-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Parable ot the Tortured Debtor
|
|
I'm following up to o-t.debate not to be combative, just because I'm not really discussing the MOC much. (...) I don't think it's the punishment that is the novelty here, but rather God's forgiveness. At least the Xtian viewpoint is that Christ (...) (21 years ago, 17-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The absurdity of American pop culture
|
|
(...) There is nothing new in Washington using "fear" to make you a good American. If you read about the work of Edward Bernays, you will see that it is the fear of communism & non-conformity which has been the basis of the economic prosperity of (...) (21 years ago, 17-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The absurdity of American pop culture
|
|
(...) Actually I'm keying in on these statesment in particuler: "The whole problem with this idea of obscenity and indecency, and all of these things -- bad language and whatever -- it's all caused by one basic thing, and that is: religious (...) (21 years ago, 16-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The absurdity of American pop culture
|
|
(...) I'm not sure how to resolve the conflicts in the subject header, the actual article, the inferences you draw from it, and Carlin's conclusion, "Society can be counted on to let this fade." :-) (21 years ago, 16-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The absurdity of American pop culture
|
|
(URL) on George Carlin to point out the hipocracy of American society. Maybe if the US government stopped perpetuating the cycle of fear we all be better off. -Orion (21 years ago, 16-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | BRUCE! Don't reply! Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Now THERE'S an understatement. I finally re-read the original formulation of my example, and the error practically bopped me in the nose. I'll see about reworking it. Dave! (21 years ago, 15-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) I am still working on a full reply to (URL) your post>, but let me inject here briefly. That there are 4 Gospels does not add any form of credibility to the veracity of the Gospel (Good News) to most Christians, and certainly not me. In fact, (...) (21 years ago, 15-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Well, now I'm confused. Granted, the four magi Dave, Todd, Tim, and Jake are four LUGNET sources, but to LUGNET-savvy people they represent four discrete voices. However, to a non-LUGNET person, all four are subsumed under LUGNET and therefore (...) (21 years ago, 15-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) I'm saying that your examples are the exact same as the model you are criticizing. You cite three supporting people (from a single source: Lugnet) as an example of a more believable evidence, and I'll I am doing is pointing out that that is (...) (21 years ago, 15-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) Well, the public can rely on perfectly secure and transparent digital voting systems, as well as an accurately representative and flexible electoral college, just like we enjoy here in the States. Dave! (21 years ago, 15-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Maybe at this point I need to fall on my sword and admit that I don't understand quite what you're getting at. What is the flaw, exactly, in the original example? Let me try again, in the spirit of redundancy: Within a single framework, three (...) (21 years ago, 15-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) Why are unlawful killings not investigated? This is from (URL) HRW>: “It’s a tragedy that U.S. soldiers have killed so many civilians in Baghdad,” said Joe Stork, acting executive director of the Middle East and North Africa division at Human (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Welcome aboard [was Re: Terrorists hate freedom]
|
|
(...) …and who is making sure we stay in the dark? The reality is that five Britons were released without charge from Guntanamo Bay this week... a fact that suggests Bush had no reason to hold them! Since their release, they have been giving their (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) If the elections are rigged so that only the two entrenched parties can prevail and the facts of the situation are shrouded in secrecy, how exactly are the leaders in any way accountable? (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate spelling properly
|
|
(...) Who can keep up with British backwardness, I tell ya! :-) (oops) But still worth making fun of! De feet, boss, de feet! (...) Considering how much you ran on about it, I doubt that! :-) (...) See! I was right! (...) Michaelangelo disagrees (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) It does. There are different kinds of religions. Changing a popular or materially well resourced religion is no small thing. But even Christianity got over this when essentially left to its own devices. Mind you, in the hundreds of years it (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
Just a drive by participant here in this particular thread, more's the pity as it has been interesting and I wish I had more time.... (...) I agree with this but fear that in some cases (that of the radical fanatic who is convinced that his god is (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate spelling properly
|
|
(...) Well, Bruce old man, you sat me back on my heels there for a minute, but no, this is not an error, just yet more American Imperialism and intolerance! 'If you don't do it like me you must be wrong'. Top marks. Next you'll be explaining to me (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) But a land invasion was tried first! "Oh well, that didn't work looks like more innocents will die that way, lets go with the nuke and see how well that works". And they didn't stop at one to see if it worked, they killed many more thousands (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) lol I'll gladly drop it:-) (...) I'm curious. If WMDs were discovered to have been smuggled off to Syria, would Bush be exonerated in your estimation? (regardless of whether you thought attacking Iraq was a good idea or not) (...) I believe (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) I fear you still don't get it. I am talking about killing an innocent (unrelated to your oppression) in order to free you from your oppressor. I am saying that that action is morally unjustified. (...) WRT to Iraq, the US took great care to (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
