|
|
 | | Re: Right on Schedule
|
| (...) Haven't you noticed that Scott debates via loaded questions? Do you think it is a communicable disease? Am I doomed to writing only questions now that I responded to this? :-0 --?Bruce?-- (20 years ago, 3-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Right on Schedule
|
| (...) Do you really expect me or anyone else to have the foggiest idea as to what you are talking about? But more importantly: will this ridiculous interchange continue in interrogatives? JOHN (20 years ago, 2-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Right on Schedule
|
| (...) Is that really what you thought I meant? (...) Wow... Fox News! Even they qualified the headline with "appears"! It is strange how Scuds = Bush was right, whilst no Scuds = CIA was wrong... (...) (20 years ago, 2-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Right on Schedule
|
| (...) So what is your point? Because I don't stick to facts means that you don't have to? (...) That was (URL) reported>. JOHN (20 years ago, 2-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
| (...) I guess it depends on who you think gets to interpret the constitution and define our rights. The Supreme Court has at least sometimes supported the understanding that Larry and I share (I think), that the 9th is an umbrella for all rights (...) (20 years ago, 2-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
