 | | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Where'd you get that? I'm more concerned with whether it's constitutional for the federal government to do something than whether the states should or should not be the final authority. If the federal government wants to pass an ammendment (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Shame on you for following Dubya's lead. It is a mistake to pretend, because you have not made a statement using a specific phrase, that you therefore have not made an equivalent statement using other words. Dubya does this all the time: "If (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Thank you. (...) I believe I am. (...) No, no, Tom. The MM would have a hard time with my beliefs-- I am hardly a schill for them! Merely because I am a Christian does not mean for a NY minute that I agree, especially politically with other (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Used. They changed it a while back, but they really only enforce it if you make a big stink about it (in other words, you have to make your crime seem that much more important to enforce than someone else's murder before they're going to come (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
You've never said it in those exact words, and you have several times tried to profess that you're an open-minded person, but just about every post you make in this group is tight-a@@ed Moral Majority pap where everything is fine as long as it goes (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
(...) The fact that past threads became debates doesn't mean that talking about NASA is OT for .geek. I'd recommend judging each thread by it's own contents, not by the history of the subject. (...) Regardless if anyone actually replies to the (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Made me curious, but yeah, I think John's spot-on on this one. Looks like it's just yet another quickie parable: "Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath set over his household, to give them their food in due season? (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
This is a reply to both Kelly and Steve (close by in the tree) and the FUT is set to just admin.general (...) I don't know what's proper. We're experimenting. I hope people won't get too upset about it, till we get it right. I did an experiment (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Big 2 willing to help with ballot access?
|
|
(...) What do I expect, you ask? Same old same old, I guess. Not that the malignancy is confined to the GOP, mind you. But doesn't mean I can't complain/be peeved/be disappointed.. (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
(...) ... But since it didn't actually become a debate, shouldn't it be left alone? I thought it was a very interesting thread, and was surprised to find it just disappeared - if it wasn't for Steve's post, I wouldn't have had any idea that it was (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
(...) Had further thoughts about this - are there guidelines about recognizing at what point a thread should be rerouted into a different group? This particular thread, IMO, is pretty harmless (now), but I can see how (URL) threads can deteriorate>. (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
(...) Hmm, thought I was on topic for .geek, but you're right, it was starting to become a debate. I agree the followup on this should go to .debate. (...) I saw part of that thread, but hadn't read it in a while - I had a hard time with some of the (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Big 2 willing to help with ballot access?
|
|
(...) I didn't pay too much attention to the 'Perot' years, but I wuold imagine, just thinking about it now, that possibly some Dems were more than willingto work at getting 'Little Yappy' on the ballot in many states, considering he filtered off (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
(...) I think the topic of 'right level of notification/intervention' is worthy of public discussion. IMO, in this specific instance, the intervention was unnecessary. I hadn't read any 'debate' into the discussion, and any time 'NASA' and 'budget' (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Let's see--by this logic, 5 therefore people count as the majority in a pool of some 100+ million voters. Hmm... Dave! (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Big 2 willing to help with ballot access?
|
|
(...) The GOP has already pulled this trick - Washington, Oregon? And I think they got challenged on some technical grounds, but I don't know the specifics. Anyway, what do you expect from the party of Tricky Dick and a candidate from Texas? (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Kelly McKiernan wrote: (snip) I have forceFUTed your post (and am considering others in the tree as well) to .debate as it's veering in that direction (discussions of the merits of funding are probably not nearly as well (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Uh, I never said that. (...) Uh, I never said that. (...) A straw man if I ever saw one. If my attitudes sicken you, at least be sickened by the ones to which I actually adhere. JOHN (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) And in California and Massachusetts, but it's still illegal. (...) Change comes when the majority decide it should change, not a tiny minority. JOHN (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Big 2 willing to help with ballot access?
|
|
It was reported in the local press that Ralph Nader is getting some aid in his quest to get on the MI ballot from an (at first glance) unexpected quarter. (URL) GOP! yes, as long as the big two think a third party or independent candidate can, by (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
