 | | Re: Bad day for individual rights
|
|
(...) I don't have an opinion on the second ruling -- it seems OK (without reading the laws in question), but I do disagree with the first. In 1906, in _Hale v. Henkel_, the court wrote: "The individual...owes no such duty [to submit his books and (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Bad day for individual rights
|
|
Hmm, a bunch of Supreme Court decisions today... (URL) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
|
"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:Hznzvx.5DF@lugnet.com... (...) astronaut in (...) Hmm, I might dispute the first civilian astronaut bit. Dennis Tito would qualify for that in my book. Well, actually, before that (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) And nations! Like during the War of Northern Aggression? Chris ;-) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
"Mr L F Braun" <braunli1@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message news:HzMHDG.1E6q@lugnet.com... (...) mean, wow, (...) caused a (...) Yea, anyone who is at least nominally a Christian who isn't Catholic has no business worrying about splitting churches. If (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
|
(...) Whoo-hoo! I just watched spaceshipone land and the first civilian astronaut in the history of mankind walk into the history books. What an exciting day! Chris (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: i decided to
|
|
(...) Look, I'm in the camp that thinks Tim was objectionable, but your text really _is_ hard to read. It takes your readers extra time to figure out what you're saying because of your wide disregard for grammar. I personally, think that you are (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: i decided to
|
|
(...) I completely and thoroughly reject the notion that I was being mean. (...) I agree, we should make an effort to foster a generally positive environment here. I also value intelligent posts with reasonable effort given to composition and (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: i decided to
|
|
(...) Was that a joke? I'm serious. I laughed out loud, but no one else has singled that line out, so now I'm curious. And can't you guys take it to .admin like Larry said? Chris (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: i decided to
|
|
snippage... (...) a) Dan posted in Castle in the first place...its not like he posted in general. That's where he likes to hang out. So he doesn't take care in his postings... b) on one hand he's in grade 9, so he should be starting to know (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Fair enough. When the Government and your church leaders tell you that you must accept the marriage of gays within your church, you can protest all you like, and I'll be right there with you in expressing that feeling. Unfortunately, that's (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: i decided to
|
|
Original message cancelled, reposting with XFUT --> admin.general. (...) Regardless of those other forums being lax, here on LUGNET, people judge you based on how you conduct yourself. Since this is the internet, one of the few ways to evaluate that (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
|
(...) Tomorrow's the scheduled launch day for the first suborbital flight (this apparently is not an X Prize qualifying flight, needs 3 people on board to be the first of the pair required, but predictions are that if this goes well, the prize will (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: i decided to
|
|
just want to say sorry if you think i am not putting effort forth but, i have showed them many works and thier responses were That guys a looser ect... and as for my grammer well you guys who have been around a while know abouth that. Ben Leo Ant (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: i decided to
|
|
(...) This is, in my considered opinion, *off topic* for the off-topic.debate newsgroup as it has to do with the norms and standards of LUGNET itself. If you have an issue with the approach Tim, or anyone else, uses to try to improve things on (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: i decided to
|
|
(...) Please don't assume I did. (...) And do you have any stats on how many people decided not to get involved in the community because of the flame wars they saw while lurking on RTL? (...) And that's great, but you're only one example. (...) I (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: i decided to
|
|
(...) Please don't second guess my assumptions. I came into this community (well, RTL) eight years ago as a 14-year-old. I was very immature, and as a result got myself pretty beaten up by those who weren't simply direct, but downright malicious in (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: i decided to
|
|
(...) You're assuming everyone here is as mature as you. Which discounts the young LEGO fans who may be lurking in .castle, and be put off by such a post. Yes, maybe their parents should explain what such a post means, but if a young kid chooses not (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: i decided to
|
|
(...) I'm a big fan of diplomacy, in cases where it is appropriate. I'm learning to become more of a fan of being direct where it is appropriate. I don't think it's fair to automatically categorize being to the point as being unfriendly. To address (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: i decided to
|
|
(...) Well I doubt he'll respond to direct suggestion either, so why make the newsgroup seem less friendly by posting it? ROSCO FUT: .o-t.debate (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: i decided to
|
|
(...) I have to agree with Tim on this. The message looks like the kind of gibberish you'd get in a spam email...from a 6 year old. (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) I agree with everything James wrote, but I think the truly beneficial course of action is for the government to get out of the business of certifying certain interpersonal contracts as having special value. The People should be free to (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Where's the harm? From one side of the issue, they get to be rid of those disgusting deviants once and for all. From the other, they get to be rid of the backward, protruding-forehead, neanderthals that have been stifling progress. It sounds (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Uh, no. You got it backwards. Bruce appears to be on the side with the rest of us. Chris (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) The issue that I see is that the government (at least, the US federal one) does not recognize any other association for the purposes of financial gain. You can't tell me that the institution of marrage is sacredly between 1 man/ 1 woman, for (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Practical and other utilitarian arguments aside, let's just say they go against my religious belief system. (...) Life is hard; it's no excuse. I'd say you may be correct and that that realization is irresponsible. (...) Unfortunately, that is (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) I'm so provincial-- I hadn't even heard of the Devil's Dictionary:-/ (now I get your smiley:-) (...) How efficient:-) (...) I think even the Mormons would protest that one! (...) HI-O! (...) Everyone else is-- except Scott!!!! 8^O JOHN (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) that was the best they could do. And I'll point out that I don't question the validity of any of the journals that they're referencing. Their main points were: (...) I think this is sort of putting the cart before the horse since it makes all (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) These are my phrases and the terms I've used are subjective. I suppose I'm just reflecting the view that most married ppl accept without really questioning it. If you want to "upset the apple cart", why not show me that I should question it? A (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: From Reason: "It's all bad news - Chaos in occupied Iraq"
|
|
(...) (shrug) American Progress CEO John Podesta said, "I think when you get so distant from the facts as -- as guys like Limbaugh and Sean Hannity do, yeah, I think that tends to -- it kind of -- it tends to corrupt the dialogue." "So distant from (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: From Reason: "It's all bad news - Chaos in occupied Iraq"
|
|
(...) Resurrecting an old point, but I came upon (URL) this> and thought it was relevant to Hannity "knowing his stuff." Dave! (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Good point. Hmm.. I'm not sure. Certainly as I mentioned, marriage isn't the issue in that case-- I'm still fine with brothers & sisters and people with disease X marrying. Procreation? Hmm. I guess it seems sort of cruel to me to have a child (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Can you say Gattaca? Chris (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
"David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message news:HzIopJ.12np@lugnet.com... (...) participants (...) book, if (...) isn't (...) Hmm, but there are genetic conditions that are far more predictable in damaging children. Should we not allow (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:HzIL24.D99@lugnet.com... (...) they (...) apply to (...) about (...) There is a lot of baggage associated with marriage that should be available to any couple. The problem with (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) As I noted to Frank, if the system is set up to handle polygamy in a balanced way, then I'm all for it. My goal isn't to restrict marriage in any way, but more to prevent people from abusing it as a legal loophole. (...) Again, the only reason (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Huh-- I guess I'm not familiar enough with it not having any spouses or dependants of my own :) I guess basically the extreme case I'm trying to avoid by limiting the number of marriage participants is to keep someone from, say, getting 1600 (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) I'm innocent! Ambrose Bierce is to blame! Or that little shoulder devil that whispered in his ear... (...) Ewww...wwwuuuuuuue! My brother never picks up his socks! But then, I know two brothers who married two sisters.... (...) I suppose if (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Absent regulation preventing them from doing so, yes. However, in the world today insurance companies are heavily regulated as to who they can or can't cover and how they go about determining risk factors or premiums. So, no. Unfortunately. (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) And that's all a matter for the individual insurance companies to work out with their customers, right? Chris (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) I knew that. What I don't know is why. Why are you opposed to those in particular? (...) I can absolutely respect yor right to believe that and even to belong to an organization that believes that, such as a church. I would rather see marriage (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Does it? Why must marriage be a special case of contract? (...) I think that if polygamy became popular the insurance companies would have ways of covering their budgets worked out way before it mattered. It is frankly startling to me that (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
I don't see a problem with this either, except.... Some insurance companies essentially provide a "Bulk Discount" for dependents - the more you have, the less you pay per dependent. I think this is wrong. You are encouraging multiple dependents in (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
Given that explanation, I think we both agree that discussion of "inherent rights" must assume that it is a social/legal construct. And that discussions of these general topics might be better served focussing on "inherent preferences." At least (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) I did. Notice -->Bruce<-- chose a secondary definition, not the primary one. The cheek:-) (...) THIS IS PRECIOUSLY MY POINT!!! (I'm screaming, but not at you). This is what our kids are being taught! It's REVISIONIST and WRONG! (...) Then I (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
I've written here before that I think it would be more valuable to reframe the entire notion of rights as responsibilities. I think the absolutism of rights is easy to get tripped up on. (At least for me.) (...) One common stance is that an entity (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Hopefully you mean "best possible within economic reason." Also, I'd like to see how the "stable relationship":"good start" metrics are compiled (you're reporting actual findings, right...not just opinion or impression?). Further, since I know (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote: As long as no one is being harmed, they should go for it. The (...) I just knew there was someone out there who thought exactly the same as I did... well put, Chris! Pedro (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
"David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message news:HzIHou.1yEv@lugnet.com... (...) example. (...) they (...) you (...) wives (...) could take (...) able (...) Insurance companies have always had to deal with an unbounded number of dependants - (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Don't you? I mean, the way US laws are written, I believe there are rights provided to married couples that wouldn't be to anyone under something like 'civil unions'. Speaking of which, is that what you're advocating? If so, how would a 'civil (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) This is a very nice summation, overall. (...) A good distinction to bear in mind. I don't think I have the ammunition to prove my case scientifically, so I should probably say I'm aiming for the philosophical angle. To clarify: By "inherent (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:HzICys.15Iv@lugnet.com... (...) as if (...) The (...) same (...) I've definitely had some trouble with the origin of rights. They feel inherent, yet it also seems generally accepted (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) My feeling is that it is the responsibility of government to ensure our children are provided with the best possible opportunities in childhood. It just so happens that children who are cared for by parents who are in a stable relationship (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) The problem here is the conflation of legal notion with absolute reality. Rights are the legal/political expression of an aesthetic that nearly everyone (involved in the discussion) supports. While I wrote before that I was siding with John, (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) I can accept your formulation more readily because it doesn't appeal to deus ex machina, but I'm not comfortable with the notion of "inherency." How is inherency identified/verified, and who gets to decide what is inherent? Hmm. Now that I (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) But it does demonstrate irrefutably that those rights are not inalienable, contrary to the assertion of the founding fathers. Inalienable rights that can be taken away aren't very inalienable. And in all practical ways, rights that are utterly (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) When you are oppressed you retain your rights. There are only two ways to be rid of rights: to surrender them (dangerously easy to do by mistake), and to have them taken from you through due process as established by the US Constitution. I (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Back to the Real Wasteland of the mind
|
|
(...) Where's that from? I think I might have one, but I can't remember where I got it. Dave! (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
John, I want to go back and apologize for saying that one thing or another that you wrote sounds dumb. It was a stupid way for me to communicate. (...) OK, I'll approach this seriously. To claim that our society is "founded" upon any thing(s) (by (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) But you also seem to believe that the majority should be able to make anything illegal if it offends their sensibilities. Right? (...) Why? John, you have asserted time and again that I can't know what the result of making the changes that I (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) I'm not sure why you're missing my point. I'm OK with any sort of union between any number of people (or, if in future other species are uplifted or discovered such that they can give informed consent) or other species as long as everyone (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) So, John, do you oppose all change in definition? Chris (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Wait a minute...you said to go look it up. Did you mean in the Bible? I assumed you meant in the dictionary. (...) What?!? Encarta is the most widely used tool for elementary-school research in the United States. I thought you wanted us to (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Indeed. (...) Not my cup of tea. (...) Hmm... Not my cup of tea either (I think my daughter has more sense than that) (...) Not my cup of tea either (my mom had issues, and we never had a very handsome dog) If you can get informed consent from (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 9/11 Panel: No Evidence Connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda
|
|
(...) Steve Bell gets it right again: (URL) (...) (URL) Blair on WMD>: "Saddam retained complete strategic intent to develop those weapons". Scott A (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Speaking of changing definitions-- I wonder how old that definition is! (...) Okay, can't you see how wrong and biased that is! Astonishing! (Evil indeed;-) (...) You green-eyed bigot! :-) Why do you draw the limit at 2??? How do you feel (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) I have no problem ending such inequities WRT to married couples verses gays. You don't have to redefine marriage to correct those wrongs! (...) I agree. (...) You assume incorrectly! The government is a terrible arbiter of right and wrong! (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Merriam-Webster: marriage: (2) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage Foul ball (counts as Strike one). You are using the term "marriage" to mean "traditional marriage", (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
I have to admit, being a Massachusetts-ite, this subject line piqued my interest. Pardon while I crash the party... (...) Doesn't it though? I think Larry quoted the rights quite accurately. But you can get more specific than that if you're (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) A reason to give one pause in its own right! :-) JOHN (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) What is your point? Don't be such a coward. Define it! (...) You mean by changing definition. JOHN (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Nicely put. And it also nice to find myself on the same team as Larry (at least occaisionally :-). Richard Still baldly going... (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) A definition. NOT The definition. This point seems lost on you. Which is why you lose the debate. By definition. (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) You are deliberately misinterpreting the Bill of Rights. Of course that Amendment had nothing to do with the concept of marriage. (...) The definition of marriage is the union of one man and one women. NO gay person is excluded from entering (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Oh my god, Larry. That was beautiful. Perhaps the single best post I've read in OTD ever. -lenny (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) Sure, IRL, but I was speaking theoretically, as I believe were the FF. Merely because someone is able to oppress me and take away my rights doesn't justify it. (...) That is precisely why I claim they are divinely-endowed, so that no one has (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Back to the Real Wasteland of the mind
|
|
(...) No bet unless you're offering mighty attractive odds (say "lottery" odds of 1:1M or better... say, my single 1x1 red brick with eye printed on it against your entire collection). Clinton's blamable for bin Laden still being out there, he had (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) I'll cite the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution. You even know the amendment... it's the one that discusses the right of citizens to associate (or not) as they choose. Then I'll cite contract law in general. People can enter into (or not (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) All I am asking is upon what do you believe our society is based. If you think it is a myriad of things, fine. What are they? (...) Upon what exactly do you base your assertion? (...) What I mean is that you are asserting things for which you (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 9/11 Panel: No Evidence Connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda
|
|
(...) You might find this (URL) site> amusing, in its discussions of why and how US involvement in WWI, WWII and WWIII was orchestrated. I had a learned friend of mine ernestly suggesting that the US administration had had a plan to join in WWII (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) Um, these rights are already very easy to take away. George W. Bush has, for example, taken them away from a whole bunch of people, both as Governor and as President, both here and abroad. Is Dubya so powerful that he can supplant the Will of (...) (20 years ago, 17-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Back to the Real Wasteland of the mind
|
|
(...) Holy crap, I just found (URL) It's viewable for free, but registration will apparently be required before long. Here's the salient bit: The unidentified detainee, believed to be a leader of the outlawed Ansar al Islam group, was held without (...) (20 years ago, 17-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 9/11 Panel: No Evidence Connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda
|
|
(...) I think I know why. The stakes are so much higher now that it is too horrifying to accept. Most people I know, as far as I can figure, simply refuse to believe that President Bush was lying to us the whole time to gain approval to pursue his (...) (20 years ago, 17-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Back to the Real Wasteland of the mind
|
|
(...) 8^( No, alas. I guess it would have been more precise to say "legitimately" instead of "simply." Dave! (20 years ago, 17-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Back to the Real Wasteland of the mind
|
|
(...) Wanna bet? Chris (20 years ago, 17-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 9/11 Panel: No Evidence Connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda
|
|
(...) Not surprisingly, Dubya is still (URL) clinging> to his "admit no error policy." Here are a few lies of omission worth noting: "This administration never said that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida," he said. Even (...) (20 years ago, 17-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Back to the Real Wasteland of the mind
|
|
(...) You're blurring the issue. The Bush administration made and continues to make claims and accusations regarding the "known" ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and those claims were used to justify the war that has resulted in over 800 American (...) (20 years ago, 17-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Pat Buchanan & Ralph Nader
|
|
Not exactly two people you'd expect to be getting along so well. (URL) interesting interview whether you agree or disagree with either or both ... (20 years ago, 17-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | freeper stuff
|
|
(...) In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Parsons wrote: (...) Whatever. I simply dug up the link because Dave's original post mentioned it and then immediately dismissed it with a somewhat misleading comment. With that link you and others are now (...) (20 years ago, 17-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Back to the Real Wasteland of the mind
|
|
(...) All media is biased in some way. And you're right, it's a problem that folks like yourself can't seem to see that. Anyhow, the point that I seem unable to make is that simply reprinting it adds nothing. It merely serves as propaganda. No doubt (...) (20 years ago, 17-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Back to the Real Wasteland of the mind
|
|
(...) Hard to see this as simply counter-spin. Indeed, its a bit light on for spin at all. It is a grave concern when folks can't seperate the spin from the facts. Its like treating the various newspapers in Don's other post (which for the most part (...) (20 years ago, 17-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Freeper stuff
|
|
(...) Hey thanks, I never heard of a freeper before, but google has. Here's the top link from a list on the yipping ground. (URL) it does point to a freeper page, the page itself contains many quotes from various international newspapers. Are you (...) (20 years ago, 16-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 9/11 Panel: No Evidence Connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda
|
|
(...) I saw that report on CNN on the "Politics" page and right on the side bar was another 'report' stating that Dubya still believes the link was there. I was also at the Freepers yipping ground today and one guy had a whole list of links to (...) (20 years ago, 16-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 9/11 Panel: No Evidence Connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda
|
|
Like, oh wauw, haven't hear that already 2 years ago... So, no evidence of WoMD in 3, 2, 1... Oh well, always handy to control oil supplies to Russia and China isn't it. Jeroen "Scott A" <dr_scott_arthur@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message (...) (20 years ago, 16-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Back to the Real Waste
|
|
(...) snip Yes, that is exactly what you're doing. You failed to provide even a paragraph of your own valuable insight. No need to be so lazy. We all know you can do better than that. (20 years ago, 16-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 9/11 Panel: No Evidence Connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda
|
|
(URL) 9/11 Panel: No Evidence Connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda> How does one engage a special prosecutor? Scott A (20 years ago, 16-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Once again, the Supreme Court proves to be gutless
|
|
(...) I'm an atheist. I refused to speak the pledge throughout my school years. I was beaten and ridiculed by my peers while the teachers pretended not to notice because of my stance. I oppose the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance because that (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Real Waste
|
|
(...) People say things like that occasionally, but I don't think it's an endemic view. I know a few professors and they're all quite underpaid -- by which I mean they could be working in the private sector and making twice as much or more for (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
