 | | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Over the past couple of months I have occasionally been sending letters to the local paper in my neck of the woods in response to another gentleman who has been doing the same. (Most of which, the paper has been printing on both sides of the (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Shearly you jest, but you may wool be correct; my baaaad:-) (...) I swear I was only helping the sheep over the fence.... JOHN (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Good suggestions all. I'd like to disclaim, though, that my original (URL) formulation> of the question made a few stipulations, among them the following: Values predating Judeo-Christianity must not be included (ie, “do unto others...”) (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) I submit that history shows the strong ties between religion and government by the presence of many state-enforced religions (including Islam in much of the Middle East, the Anglican Church in England, and Atheism in the ex-U.S.S.R.). I submit (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Somehow I can't imagine the sheep objecting, but I must admit that my expertise on such "relationships" is limited solely to two rather off-color jokes, so others here might know better than I... ;P (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) Because the longer we stay there, the more it looks like they're a puppet government controlled by the US. And if they can't stand on their own without having us there to quell rebellion, they effectively are, by virtue of the fact that we'd (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) (URL) fun) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote: <snip> (...) And the scary bit is that, from what I've read, all Dave's seem to be on the same page regarding this issue, and these Dave's come from widely divergent backgrounds. Wow! Dave K -go Daves (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) So your point is that the state has a vested interest in NOT recognizing marriages? Why? I thought your point (in a past debate) was that somehow gay marriage negatively affected the American family, which was the foundation of society (though (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <larry.(mylastname)@...areDOTcom> wrote in message news:I14L96.1r36@lugnet.com... (...) to/seem (...) debunking (...) Hmm, is that debunking that democracies tend to/seem to go to war less, or debunking that certain nations are (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
"Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message news:I15rpI.1v7n@lugnet.com... (...) pee in (...) so, (...) involving the (...) in the (...) I'm with you on this one. I visited a dorm at MIT that had a co-ed bathroom, that had multiple stalls (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) I recognize that the law requires boys to pee in one place and girls to pee in another, but I can't really think of a solid reason that this should be so, other than because people can be quaintly immature about functions involving the (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) How many persons? (...) So are public restrooms. Are you against separating those? (...) For what possible reason? That is downright strange. (...) Well, that "church" has some issues. (...) lol "evolution of society"? Are you so sure our (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) So you would have no objection if the Federal government enacted laws barring Christians from marrying? I want you to go on record on this, with the following qualifiers: You can't claim "our country is based on Judeo-Christian tradition" (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Hey, I'm cool with that. Whoever brings the issue to the table has done the right thing, IMO. I figured that John was right in citing Left-leaning judges as the source of the current controversy, but if the controversy began its momentum with (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) The state should recognize marraige as a contract between persons, no matter their sexual affiliation. If the Church wants to put quantifiers on that contract, i.e. one person must be female, and the other must be male, all the power to the (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) This discussion is about the definition of marriage, Dave. How would you define it? (...) The issue is whether the state has a vested interest in recognizing marriages or not. JOHN (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Ever tried to use the women's restroom? Or do you advocate unisex bathrooms? JOHN (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) BUT, does the state have a vested interest in promoting certain contracts above others? Marriage and families are pretty efficient at raising the next generation of citizens (at least as compared to the state). What is wrong with giving these (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Nike sued over a stick-man drawing?
|
|
Honestly, I think Nike ripped off xiaoxiao but will win the case ;-) (...) What's that? I live outside the US. (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) For instance, show me in the Constitution the right to marry. You will have to stretch and twist, until finally you can come up with a ruling such as Roe vs Wade that allows a women to kill her baby in her third trimester of pregnancy under (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) I agree, but it wouldn't be right to leave them before they were ready and able to defend their land and freedom on their own. And what is the rush, anyway? We are a powerful ally, and a valuable resource. The smart would utilize us, not (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) The operative word I'd say would be "two". (...) Not really. Marriage is a religious institution-- that governments decide to recognize marriages as civil unions is where the rub lies. All I am arguing is for the preservation of the definition (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Don't forget anullment which is the Catholics' way of getting around that little religious entanglement. (...) Now, see, there you're just restricting the rights of the citizenry to break their solemn vows. That'll never fly (heck, in (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) Every wrong? No more than the next guy, which is to say that we shouldn't just ignore them if we have the power to coerce them to go away, and we shouldn't be unwilling to step up and correct them by force if it's unconscionable not to do so. (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nike sued over a stick-man drawing?
|
|
(...) Okay, I've watched it now. Thanks for the link, BTW. It's actually quite an amusing little ad. Now, Even though the Nike version moves in a less jerky manner, pulls all kinds of weird body stunts that the xiaoxiao version doesn't, interacts (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) How is allowing or not allowing same-sex marriages going to affect this? I mean, it's a valid concern and all, but forbidding two guys to get married with each other won't make them want to get married to women and have kids, and allowing two (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) At least, that's how you _hope_ it'll look when you choose not to get involved. It seems that half of the Middle East hates us because we did get involved in one situation, and half of the Middle east hates us because we didn't in another, so (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) But there IS a humane way. Help societies to move away from subsistence agriculture (and the modern sweatshop equivalent) by introducing the rule of law, property rights, and fostering the growth of free enterprise. This reduces the incentive (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) I'm not seeing where that description of linkage rules out a similar linkage with another willing partner, although I'd grant that it does rule out the partmer being the same gender. I'm also not seeing the relevance to constitutional rights (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Yep, you've just lost any sense of moral ground--"let no man separate". As long as "man" is separating, you've got nothing. Get rid of divorce (man separating the covenant that 'God joined'), get rid of adultery and coveting, and then we may (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) No, it's saying I have an opinion about it and that's what it is, and despite it being *my* opinion, I'm not claiming infallability about it merely because I stated it. Sorry if that phrasing caused confusion. Hope that helps. (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: (snipped a bunch of rehash of why John's confused about what right of free association means) (...) You give the Left too much credit here. Insofar as there is any validity in the Right/Left labels (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) I liked Dave K's response here, so this is just embellishment. As long as we bill ourselves as the world's policeman it is. As soon as cops can't enforce, they lose their power. That's where we are now. But that's the wrong reason. We should (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Are you feeling ok, John? This is precisely what I've been arguing all along. Let the parties to the contract (or the private contracting/sanctioning organization) define who can participate. Keep the state out of interfering with the right of (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) They may thank us for getting rid of Hussein, but they don't all want us to stay. The best analogy I've heard of this is shortly after the fall of Baghdad when an Iraqi citizen walked up to a US soldier and said something to the effect of, (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) We'd lose any remaining credibility if we just annexed them into the US (not to mention the added drawback of being permanently stuck with them until either we or they are all dead, which is really a greater cost than the oil is worth), and we (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) This begs the question - with over 6 BILLION humans on this earth, do we REALLY need to make it easier for Breeders to spit out more humans than they should be? The earth would be far better off if we'd figure a *humane* way to scale the world (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) Seriously, whom do you suppose we are fighting in Iraq? You are simply clueless. (...) Again, you have no idea what is going on in Iraq. The Iraqis want us to stay, not as a conqueror, but as a protector. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Why don't you leave the exogesis of the Bible to those who know what they are talking about (as you obviously don't). (...) The point is moot, to Christians at least. Jesus' teaching on the subject is clear, as He quotes from Genesis (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) True, the Iraqi situation doesn't directly have anything to do with global terrorism, but here's an analogy-- You're a police officer Your duty is to protect the innocent civilians. You and your fellow citizens see a bully acting against the (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) "Seems"? Is that like saying that water "seems" wet? (...) This is exactly the reason why many powerful nations have laws specifically prohibiting themselves from negotiating with terrorists. It gives the politicians a legal and quasi-moral (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) It is forbidden, but not very strongly. It's basically under optional enforcement, so the US can revoke your citizenship whenever it's convenient as long as it can be proven that you've done something that warrants such action. Technically the (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) The term "polygamy" has the advantage of covering both polygyny and polyandry (and being a term that most people have actually heard of). Yes, the bible really only deals with polygyny, but it can be politically advantageous to lump them (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) Would a quick victory after (say) 2 months of conflict have emboldened Bush? Scott A (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nike sued over a stick-man drawing?
|
|
(...) Sorry for that, I normally post through a newsreader. I forgot to change to "plain text". (...) I agree, the principle of the stickman is of course very old. But the look of the character and movements, he might have a point there. (...) You (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) How do you figure? The war in Iraq doesn't have anything to do with global terrorism. In Iraq, terrorism is merely a tool to repel the invader. We should either conquer them or get the hell out. Chris (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Clearly. Article 3, section 2: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, etc." To abridge this function of the judiciary would indeed require an amendment. (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) The Philippines were leaving anyway; the kidnapping just hastened things a little. They may well have been part of Bush’s Coalition of the Coerced; but I expect their ~50 troops where nothing but a token. (...) I agree, but I expect the amount (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) It's amazing that I just agreed with everything that was stated by Dave! You cannot have sexual discrimination in laws. A law forbidding same-sex marriage is sexual discrimination and takes away rights from individuals. Dave K (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) These questions should have already been asked, and were asked, by those that compared this to the similarities to the Vietnam war--but those were brushed aside as 'unpatriotic'. The difference here is that, whereas the US evacuation in '75 (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) My objection is to the use of the terms "activist judge" or "judicial activism" as short-hand subsitutions for actual debate. Too often Conservative pundits have decried judicial rulings as "activist" without presenting any legitimate (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) What is the war for? What would constitute a victory? A defeat? (...) Is that to say that it is somehow critically important for the US to win every war? Is it possible that it would be good for the American gestalt psyche for us to lose a (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) This is exactly my point-- by what reasoning do you choose to define marriage soley between 2 parties? On what basis do you make this discrimination? I have chosen to define it as 1 man and 1 woman. You choose "two-party". Someone else might (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Not the right way to exit?
|
|
Most of you know I am no fan of our present little war. However: (URL) that seems the wrong way to exit. Those who point out that this action shows that threatening hostages to try to influence countries is now more likely rather than less have a (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) If we follow the logic that marriage is a legal two-party contract - then union of woman and horse is disallowed because horses can't engage in legal contracts. Neither can dogs, turtles, mice, or chimpanzees. If this groups of animals were to (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) OK, I was totally wrong. The US pretends that dual citizenship doesn't exist. It's neither expressly forbidden nor permitted. Some nations, like Germany expressly forbid it. Dual citizens primarily risk losing their citizenship by (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) This is very OT (excuse the pun); for a NT ref see Matthew 25:1-12: "...the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom...." ;) (...) (I think you mean polygyny). It was (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Nike sued over a stick-man drawing?
|
|
(...) The image link didn't work right because it was in FTX (gotta watch out for those underscores). It should work right in this post, though. (...) Do you mean the xiaoxiao movies? I agree that they're amusing (and by "they", I mean #3+, since (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Nike sued over a stick-man drawing?
|
|
"Purple Dave" schreef in bericht news:I0z7EJ.1FDM@lugnet.com... (...) (URL) 0716/aponbige/chinanikesued1 (...) In search for the nike commercial I find this (URL) I find that funny. :-) I have seen the commercial and I think the guy has a point. The (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) "Activist judge" = "Hitler"? This is big, Dave! I think you are underestimating the arguments against legislating from the bench. I'm curious-- how would you respond to an act of congress that went something like this: "The courts are not to (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET might be in trouble with the Induce act
|
|
(...) Thanks for bringing this up. Scary stuff! As for the act itself, it seems it is brought to us by some of my LEAST favorite senators: Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. FRIST, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina, and Mrs. BOXER) (20 years ago, 17-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Nike sued over a stick-man drawing?
|
|
You know, I used to think the US had cornered the market on stupid lawsuits, but (URL) is just too funny. (20 years ago, 17-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Dubya's Resume
|
|
(...) the advent of television." Not sure if that's such a bad thing when you speak as well as Shrub. ROSCO (20 years ago, 16-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | ITV Bias-O-Meter
|
|
(URL) got me thinking. (URL) TV> is a slow (non?) starter. Wouldn't it be fun if all the news channels had interactive Bias-O-Meters where the viewers got to rate the shows on the fly to see where they fit in on the lefty to righty scale? That's (...) (20 years ago, 16-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The funniest thing I've seen in months
|
|
(...) Well, um, I mean, uh... We're just talking hypothetically, right? None of us would ever dream of truly circumventing a protection of this sort? (...) Actually, I know people who know everything. I'm just the medium, like the pipe that carries (...) (20 years ago, 16-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The funniest thing I've seen in months
|
|
(...) I could be a big less vague here, but the DMCA makes me nervous, discussing how to circumvent a web redirect embedded in a blob of flash content. You know everything Dave, remind me who's responsible for that piece of garbage legislation so I (...) (20 years ago, 16-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The funniest thing I've seen in months
|
|
(...) Hadn't even thought of that. Can I just yank the file out of my Temporary Internet folder, or do I need to use the cookie to play it on a non-Internet-linked flashplayer? FUT: OT-Geek Dave! (20 years ago, 16-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The funniest thing I've seen in months
|
|
(...) Hey, thanks for the mirror site. It's almost impossible to get through to the original at jibjab. Better yet, view source on the html of your mirror site reveals the secret cookie required to run a local copy of the swf file. Cool. Don (20 years ago, 16-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | The funniest thing I've seen in months
|
|
(URL) Maybe rated PG for language.> Savvy viewers may lament the exclusion of any third-party japes, but there's a wonderful swipe at Dean and a funny Kubrick moment for Bush. (20 years ago, 16-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Dubya's Resume
|
|
(URL) saw this and figured the gang on OTD might get a kick out of it.) Adr. (20 years ago, 16-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | LUGNET might be in trouble with the Induce act
|
|
(URL) guy posts about technilogies that might be effectivly outlawed if the stupid "Induce" act passes. Today's entry was LEGO. Since LEGO provides the mosaiac maker, and encourages people to upload scans of pictures they might not own the copyright (...) (20 years ago, 16-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Metru Nui Goes Political
|
|
(...) When the "story bible" was reportedly developed (2000, when Bush's administration was largely hobbled by the whole Florida vote stigma), the whole Soviet era was considered a fairly safe topic. We'd beaten them in the Cold War and seen them (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Metru Nui Goes Political
|
|
(...) Obviously, LEGO is too politically correct (and marketing savvy) to openly criticize American political policies. In fact, pushing a Soviet-style marketing campaign is probably cutting-edge daring for them. But that doesn't mean such (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.technic.bionicle, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Let's establish henceforth that any time a debater uses "activist judges" as a means to trump an argument, then the debater has forfeited the argument. The Left has *not* forced the issue. One state's judiciary has rightly identified the laws (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Metru Nui Goes Political
|
|
(...) Considering they had seven "books" plotted out (of which we are in the 2nd) before they even started designing the first sets, I think you're reading a little too much into this. Also, considering the Vahki are accompanied by faux-Cyrillic (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.technic.bionicle, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) But don't you see that that is the crux of the matter. The Left has forced the issue-- now the only solution is an "all or nothing" one. The activists couldn't just leave well enough alone. (...) Really now. You know that's not what it's (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Relevance? (as if polygamy was a "biblical principle"). JOHN (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Metru Nui Goes Political
|
|
(...) Yeah, very true. The entire Vahki/Metru Nui saga is taking a Soviet turn (as is the US, IMO). The press release for the Vahki has a new tagline: "Surrender or Run". The fonts and artwork style used on the ad collateral is very reminiscent of (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.technic.bionicle, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) But that's a very different issue from Santorum's holier-than-thou prohibition amendment. The amendment, as proposed, would have stripped individual states of their right to define marriage. If the amendment had forbidden the Federal (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Shameless diversion aside, I agree. Let's get back to biblical principles. How many wives and concubines did Soloman have again? Allister (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Metru Nui Goes Political
|
|
Lego has put up a teaser about the Vahki enforcement squads in Mertu Nui. Substitute "Department of Homeland Security" for "Vahki" and "Constitution" for "law" and you have an all too topical bit of agitprop. "Matoran are disappearing." Indeed. (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.technic.bionicle, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) The proof will be in the pudding. If the Lefties try and challenge (URL) the DOMA> under the 14th Amendment, then their agenda will be clear, and only a new amendment to the Constitution will protect States' rights for self-determination. The (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Surely by now you've heard the theory that if you lean too far to the left or right you end up falling to the other side, haven't you? (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) I thought the issue was that they were unlikely to vote for Buchanan. (...) The issue was that the Democrats were only bringing known pro-Dem areas into question in the first place. Voting errors occur all the time, and Gore's campaign wasn't (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) Some of my friends introduced me to a family that they met after moving to NYC, where the mother is Canadian, the father is from New Zealand, and the kids were both born in the US, thus affording both kids triple-citizenship...until they turn (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Color trends in industry
|
|
(...) Sorry, the above should have read "I honestley hate the new color scheme for castle"... I'm still undecided about the color changes... I need to get enough of the new colors & build a few things with both colors to see if (a) I like it or not; (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.color, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Color trends in industry
|
|
(...) Color is big business, so it's no real suprise. And color plays a important part in the appeal of a product. I've had friends go through art school and within the first two years, you take several color theory classes; to the point where (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.color, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Color trends in industry
|
|
(...) I'm thinking it's (URL) not> since I knew someone (friend of a friend) who did exactly this. Either that or I'm pretty gullible. Or both. (...) You seriously think that this sort of discussion doesn't happen? Planned Obsolescence has been (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Color trends in industry
|
|
(...) Let me get this straight - a bunch of people pay money to join an organization that tells me what colors I want? Huh?? This is either the most brilliant science ever, or it's a bunch of hooey. I'm thinking it's (URL) hooey!> This kind of stuff (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Well, I suppose that it is the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of Not-Rights? ;-) -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(URL) Good sense has prevailed, for now.> What intrigues me is that the rush to amend the Constitution in order to restrict freedom is expressly contrary to the supposed philosophy of true Conservatives, yet so-called Conservatives worked the (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) Yes we are dammit!! Agree with me or I'll hit you over the head with this spoon! Dave K -I say to all you villians--KNOCK OFF ALL THAT EVIL!!!!! (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) Whoops! Indeed my Freudian slip is showing. Oh, to be Jung again. (...) As to the first, I agree. As to the second, I disagree (but with reservations). As to the third, he was oath-sworn to fulfill the office of President, so in fighting (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) Yes we are! (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) Um, we're going to have to CHARGE you for those Kumbaya lessons, you realise. (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) Who cares? What does agriculture have to do with government? (other than that one is a fertilizer consumer and the other a fertilizer producer) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) Some have tried to refute him, yes. Was that a Freudian slip? (...) I am not so keen on his suspension of Habeas Corpus or imposition of Income Tax, or on not supporting the right of peaceful secession but at least you can't successfully (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) K, so Dave K's Prez.. SecState would be... I'd say Larry (or John, I'm still debating that) SecDef would be Bruce (cause I like his style about dealing with foreign peeps) Who else... Who knows anything about agriculture? Dave K (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) I should have done my research: A Republican of some refute has already (URL) weighed in> on this issue, and I'm happy to accept his opinion, even if his notion of Republican values is wildly out of touch with that of today's administration. (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
