 | | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) Communism. Essentially denies supply and demand. Interesting idea but it didn't seem to work, at least at some levels. (...) "Workhours" unless you are still in the dark ages. :-) -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) Well, nobody's perfect. Me, I'd vote for the candidate who'll deliver a half gallon of premium ice cream to my door each morning. Lacking that candidate I can either vote for her as a write-in, or I can vote for the candidate who gets closest (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) I agree. Even if "the rich" rent their home, the owner will pass on the tax cost. Taxing the relative value of property also allows more for local markets than a nationwide income tax. Scott A (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) That's how I meant it all along. Sorry for being unclear. You don't have to have people as stewards, though that might foster a philosophic advantage for society, so long as what's taxed is the wealth, regardless of who owns it. For the rest (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) Exactly the point I was making upthread as to why I reject both sides and plan to (probably) vote Libertarian. Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, after all, if I am not mistaken, and has no plans to repudiate it, or the War on Drugs or any of (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) Hey, you're missing the big picture. You're certainly free to marry one person of the opposite sex, free to own a registered firearm that meets certain specifications (as long as you also meet certain specifications), free to speak English as (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) In principle I think this would work for me, as long as we can set up a guarantee against certain individuals legally declaring themselves the tax-free stewards (rather than tax-liable owners) of a multi-billion dollar estate, or something (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) Lighten up. I was making a joke around the common (mis?)conception that libertarians tend to be a tad selfish. I'm not accusing you specifically of anything. But if the shoe fits... (...) It is a small point on which I did not expect a reply. (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) Maybe you mean only as a result of 911, but if not, you both seem to have an odd stance here. My second amendment liberties have been eroded by both sides of the spectrum. Each side has an agenda and neither of them are my freedom. Chris (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) But wouldn't that play havoc with comparative advantage? One hour of Bill Gates's time is worth more than one hour of Paul Krugman's time and forcing them to be the same seems to miss any information the market can transmit to improve (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Fair Tax (was: Preaching to the Choir)
|
|
(...) I read the thumbnail but stopped there. Are services taxed? What about people taking their cash out of the country to spend it? Wouldn't the wealthy merely sock all their extra cash into "used" real estate and further enslave renters? just (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) Oh, I was just making the terms up, for all I know. I guess I should have explicated. (...) Yes. I see it as a sure-fire loop-hole avoidance scheme. If all property is taxed, regardless of who owns it, then the rich -- even when trying to (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) Pardon? I recall alternative definitions being presented to you here. What exactly do you mean by "nobody will?" I also recall reading explanations to you of why such redefinition would be a "good thing" and you merely dismissed them. Can you (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
I always felt this was a "right-wing" group. However, I feel that 911 understandably radicalised opinion in this group; many with loosely held views (or perhaps covert right-wingers?) lurched to the right and called for all sorts of people to be (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: (snip) (...) (snip) Off topic, but since proposed legislation is being introduced, I'm wondering how all of the usual suspects here view a consumption tax for the US, as proposed (URL) HERE> No more (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) I need to plead ignorance and ask for clarification: By "wealth tax" do you mean a tax on acquisitions/already-held holdings separate from income? And does "common earnings per hour rate" mean that everyone would get the same hourly wage (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) Why is income tax better than either of: a wealth tax or setting a common earnings per hour rate across the nation and acting as a public work clearinghouse? Chris (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) Just for clarity, could we have a solid definition of "Libertarian" here, leaving a minimum of wiggle room? My impression is that the Libertarian tent admits as many variants as does the Democratic or Republican tent. What's the clear (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Hey Pyramid Guy!!!
|
|
(...) Ultimately it is because he was trying to describe his observations not make something up along the lines of "wouldn't it be nice if..." I think that people staying in abusive domestic relationships illustrates the importance of social (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) One aspect of open-mindedness that should perhaps be cleared up is the fact that an open mind need not admit all possibilities. An open mind refrains generally from speaking in non-verifiable absolutes (in the knowledge that nothing can be (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) That makes no sense whatever. My wife and I have a difference of opinion about the importance of voting for Kerry, and about how much different Kerry is than the incumbent but choosing to vote one way rather than the other doesn't make it "me (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) (Getting out red pencil) Incorrect! Wrong pun! Your reply was half-assed (correct pun for a semi-colon). -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) IANAEM, butt you are correct;-) JOHN (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) Yes. You make it sound like a bad thing. :-) I'm not sure that society has any such "responsiblity", I just think it makes for a better society. (...) "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." And just (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) I think we'll have to let the arguments settle to the bottom and accumulate a bit before we sift through your sediments. We don't want to precipitate anything new at this point. -->Bruce<-- Miner in Geology (written as intended) :-) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) Okay, I accept that definition and gladly state that in a lot of areas, I am close-minded. Here is one example: on the topic of adultery, I am close-minded and reject that behavior. Do you have a problem with that? (...) More generalities. You (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) We may have to. My definition of close-minded is to be so entrenched in your own point of view that you do not consider the possibility that any other point of view could have merit. Your endless circuitous logic, well demonstrated in this (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) Me Me Me. Typical libertarian! I have never said or implied that I want to "tax and regulate till there's nothing left". I do believe that society has a responsibility to provide basic services such as healthcare and education. Does that make (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) You make it sound as if there is something wrong with coming to a conclusion about anything. Is it so hard to accept that I can consider a POV and finally reject it? It is as if your definition of "close-minded" is anyone who doesn't see the (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) ...Or that I maintain an open mind, even when I am already fairly convinced of my viewpoint. Are you so arrogant that you believe it is possible for a human being to achieve total, certain understanding of these issues? (...) Listen to (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) I bet the cave men once said that about community law too. Never is a LONG time. ROSCO (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) Meanwhile, our political race is neck and neck (so say the "polls") and our election is due to be announced Any Time Now. I really can't get excited about either major party here either. Of course voting is compulsory here. I could vote (...) (20 years ago, 8-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Chris Phillips wrote: (snip) (...) This only indicates that you hadn't considered all of the ramifications of a particular issue. Most of the issues I argue I have examined to the Nth degree; my only hope here is to (...) (20 years ago, 8-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) I'd love to see a return to the tradition of Scandinavian Moots, where before each meeting of the governing body, they had to recite every law from memory. Can't remember them all? Just don't feel like repeating them all before you can move on (...) (20 years ago, 8-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) Well I hope you're right that he's going to lose. I would have hoped to see some movement in the polls (for whatever they're worth) but I suppose the real test will be when the fur starts flying at the debates. (...) not even news anymore when (...) (20 years ago, 8-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) Mispoke? I'd call it a Freudian slip. :-) -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 8-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) It's not that I am doing nothing. I think Bush is going to lose(1), when all is said and done. It's just that the other alternative doesn't excite me much. 1 - if he keeps saying things like this, maybe people will realise he IS saying the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) Good point, Lar. American politics is not a one-dimensional field, and I did not intend to belittle the parties/movements/ideologies that do not fit neatly into nice little red & blue boxes. As for your head-in-the-sand approach, well, best of (...) (20 years ago, 8-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) Anyone who has read my LUGNET posts has seen countless occasions where I have retracted my own statements and/or evolved my opinion about one topic or another. And unlike George Bush, I try to never make a statement without backing it up with (...) (20 years ago, 8-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) The good word I've always tried to share is that of freedom. Free minds, free markets. The problem is that neither "side"(1) gets it. The Right (that's you, John, and your ilk) wants to take away my personal *rights*. They are busily impinging (...) (20 years ago, 8-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Casting seeds on stony ground (was re: Preaching to the Choir)
|
|
(...) I agree completely, and have been taking a similar course, for similar reasons. There's a parable isn't there, about scattering seeds all over, and the seeds sprouting and giving forth a harvest whose size depended on the kind of ground onto (...) (20 years ago, 8-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) Well, I doubt I'm in the choir to which you are referring in your subject line; you probably have me in mind when speaking about the "small conservative fringe on the right" (BTW, what does that mean, exactly?). So let me tell you about my (...) (20 years ago, 8-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Preaching to the Choir
|
|
I've noticed that o-t.d seems to be populated largely by people who will never change their minds about the issues being discussed. There are a lot of us on the left who seem to be pounding the same arguments into the ground against a small (...) (20 years ago, 8-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Save the ipod, stop the INDUCE act
|
|
(...) Hey Tim, Thanks for posting this! I can imagine this bill would affect DVR (i.e. TiVo) owners too. Adr. (20 years ago, 7-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Save the ipod, stop the INDUCE act
|
|
The record and movies industries are pressuring Congress to pass a bill this week that will threaten the iPod and peer-to-peer networks. I just sent free faxes urging my reps in Congress to stop the INDUCE Act. Convincing even a single Senator will (...) (20 years ago, 7-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hey Pyramid Guy!!!
|
|
(...) If you consider basic friendships as meeting the requirement for that tier, it really throws a different spin on that than if you consider it as only referring to dating-or-higher relationships. There have been studies showing that even having (...) (20 years ago, 6-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Hey Pyramid Guy!!!
|
|
So there's this Maslow guy who talked about the 5 tiers of basic needs-- physiological needs - food, water, secure place to sleep, etc safety needs - won't get eaten, stabbed, whatever love and affection - emotional bonding with others esteem - (...) (20 years ago, 6-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Yaay Canada! Canadian Team goes for X Prize
|
|
(...) Those crazy Canadians... Like everything else, shoestring budget (350,000) and using a baloon to get to a good altitude. Whoda thunk? Dave K (20 years ago, 6-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Yaay Canada! Canadian Team goes for X Prize
|
|
(...) "Back-Bacon One, you are cleared for take off, eh?" WElcome to the private spacerace, neighbors! Dave! (20 years ago, 6-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Michael Moore sued for lying?
|
|
Hmmmm ... it is probably NOT a good idea to get into this at this place. I am not a huge moore fan, and I can certainly understand how he can come accross as extremly annoying. But your post has left me wondering and, with all the due respect that a (...) (20 years ago, 6-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Yaay Canada! Canadian Team goes for X Prize
|
|
(URL) whatever reason, this was binned into the Oddly Enough section on Yahoo (because Reuters did, I guess). (20 years ago, 6-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "In order to do a proper count one has to know how many people voted in the first place."
|
|
(...) We've got Absentee Ballots, but they're primarily aimed at those who either can't be in their district on voting day (such as deployed troops), or can't reasonably be expected to travel to their voting place (such as the elderly or (...) (20 years ago, 6-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | "In order to do a proper count one has to know how many people voted in the first place."
|
|
(...) Postal votes have been used in the UK for yonks. However, they have been used recently as a tool to improve voter turnout. This has led to three problems: Party workers have been "assisting" voters with the paperwork. Within some ethnic (...) (20 years ago, 6-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
"Purple Dave" <purpledave@maskofdestiny.com> wrote in message news:I1zIBB.6M0@lugnet.com... (...) you (...) to (...) not one (...) party (...) door). The best ballots I have seen so far were in Wake County North Carolina. A very easy ballot where (...) (20 years ago, 5-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) I've been against e-voting from very first moment I heard about it, because the closer it gets to being done over the internet, the closer it gets to the point where either a hacker can directly tweak the results, or a timed virus can prevent (...) (20 years ago, 5-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) Interestingly, it appears that the GOP has decided that e-voting is so unreliable that it's encouraging Florida Republicans to use their absentee ballots instead. (URL) this is all becoming less and less hypothetical as we go along. Hmm... (...) (20 years ago, 5-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Bush drags the US through the mud again
|
|
(URL) Red Cross says Tipton Three may have case: US abuse could be war crime> "Some of the abuses alleged by the detainees would indeed constitute inhuman treatment... but we can't comment on this publicly since this type of allegation is raised (...) (20 years ago, 5-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: How about a glossary?
|
|
(...) No, only that it was intended to be taken in a humorous way. (...) Okay. You got the "joke" but decided to deliberately respond with hostility anyway. Fine. LUGNET just got a little less civil. JOHN (20 years ago, 5-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: How about a glossary?
|
|
(...) Well, that was my point. Last I heard, adding a smiley doesn't automatically make a statement into a joke, it generally requires some humour to be present. (...) Really??????? No kidding????!!!!!????? Ha ha ha. ROSCO (20 years ago, 5-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: How about a glossary?
|
|
(...) Well, that was the joke (hence the smiley). Your post was about 4 minutes after mine... (...) (URL) Lighten up, Francis.> JOHN (20 years ago, 5-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: How about a glossary?
|
|
(...) Well John, that might even be slightly funny if it was all old news, but if you read carefully, you'll see I included more than your solitary useful link and one totally meaningless one. So please try to keep the stupid **** in (...) (20 years ago, 4-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Michael Moore sued for lying?
|
|
(...) I'd ask what a pentagraph has to do with either a pentacle or a pentagram...but I live in Holland, and I know how stupid some of the locals can be about such things. They did chase an Oscar-winning Dutch film out of town, after all. What (...) (20 years ago, 4-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Right on Schedule
|
|
(...) I'll try to take your views on board. (...) I feel better already! (...) The one left of centre gets my vote. ;) Scott A (20 years ago, 4-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Michael Moore sued for lying?
|
|
(...) Interestingly, (URL) this> makes it sound like the firework was named after the window... It (URL) appears> they are not normally octagonal. Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 4-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Michael Moore sued for lying?
|
|
(...) eh? What's *5* got to do with it? The name of the paper is pAntagraph, not pEntagraph (personally I'd love to publish a paper so titled in, say, Holland, MI to get the mundanes all uptight, but I digress) or pantOgraph, which was my original (...) (20 years ago, 4-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Michael Moore sued for lying?
|
|
(...) Oh I caught the rtlT topic relation, and I especially liked the 'eh' bit 'cause, well, I am Canadian and I like the 'eh', eh. But I just wanted to clarify for my faulty recollection that a Catharine wheel/window was 8 sided instead of 5. Dave (...) (20 years ago, 4-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Michael Moore sued for lying?
|
|
(...) I didn't give a good enough hint with the "eh", I guess. This obscure reference was to rtlT's discussion about St. Catharines (town name) vs. St. Catherines (incorrectly spelled town name)... not to any torture devices, fireworks, windows, or (...) (20 years ago, 4-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Michael Moore sued for lying?
|
|
(...) I always thought a Catherine Wheel was a rock band; maybe it's just that I have been staring at the sun too long;-) JOHN (20 years ago, 4-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Michael Moore sued for lying?
|
|
(...) I always thought a Catharine wheel was 8 sided, like a stopsign--I was told that those little 8 sided windows usually on the 2nd storey of small brick houses built in the 30's-40's were called 'Catharine windows'. Of course, all this is (...) (20 years ago, 4-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Michael Moore sued for lying?
|
|
(...) Er, PantAgraph. Where's St. Catharine when you need her, eh? (20 years ago, 4-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Michael Moore sued for lying?
|
|
(...) This link (which I got to via: (URL) which I got to via a google search for Pantagraph and Moore ) would tell you, I bet. (URL) the first article down However it's wasn't worth 2.95 to *me* to find out. Perhaps it is to someone else. However (...) (20 years ago, 4-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Michael Moore sued for lying?
|
|
(...) This appeared the other day somewhere else (Los Angeles Times?). The really big difference was that they were reported as asking for $1 (note the significant lack of the word "million") in compensation for damages (a token amount so that they (...) (20 years ago, 3-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Michael Moore sued for lying?
|
|
It seems that (URL) Moore played it a little too fast and loose in F-9/11>. A newspaper was shown on screen with "Latest Florida recount shows Al Gore won election" as its headline. The Pantagraph of Bloomington Illinois, which is the newspaper in (...) (20 years ago, 3-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Prior to 1965, the 9th Amendment was not used to restrict the states from excercising their 10th Amendment rights. At that point, it was used to safeguard the privacy of one's home, but subsequent citations of the 9th Amendment have shown that (...) (20 years ago, 3-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Right on Schedule
|
|
(...) Do you know that you are a bad bad person?(1) ++Lar 1 - You do know that you are bad, *not* for modifying, some of my best friends(2) modify stuff, but actually for not setting the FUT right? (3) 2 - Did you think to yourself "AND Rob (...) (20 years ago, 3-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.parts.mod, FTX)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Right on Schedule???
|
|
(...) What do you think? (...) Are you ignoring my clever wordplay? (...) Are you now the green-eyed grammar police? (...) :-) By coincidence, my son and I watched the original Batman movie last night-- they don't mak'em like they used to, do they? (...) (20 years ago, 3-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Right on Schedule
|
|
(...) Well, I suppose they did, though I wasn't really paying attention. I apologize if I let him off the hook too easy (and I think it is an established fact that John and I do not see eye to eye on politics or religion at all). But I do think he (...) (20 years ago, 3-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Right on Schedule???
|
|
(...) Does that impact my rhetorical question one way or another? (...) What would make you think otherwise? (...) Is that a rhetorical question that I just questioned? (...) Ascii depiction of Frank Gorshin in his Batman nemesis role? ??>Bruce<?? (...) (20 years ago, 3-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Right on Schedule
|
|
(...) lol Like I said, you choose to make noise rather than be honest. I hate nobody. I have a dislike for Sharon, his policies and extremist Israeli nationalism in general; but I know I’m not alone in that. I also have a dislike for Palestinian (...) (20 years ago, 3-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Further news management?
|
|
(...) Oh, but didn't you hear? We're "TURNING THE CORNER!" That's right! Or was that "going 'round the bend..."? Oh well, nothing a few more Wal-Mart greeter jobs can't make up! LFB (20 years ago, 3-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Right on Schedule
|
|
(...) Are you not the KING of the noisemakers? Is (URL) this> not the latest proof? What is it with you and your anti-Israel axe grinding? Don't you think everyone knows by now that you hate Israel? Isn't that ground plowed enough? What ever is your (...) (20 years ago, 3-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Further news management?
|
|
(URL) Further news management?> If true, one has to wonder what this is costing the economy of the USA. Scott A (20 years ago, 3-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution [may offend]
|
|
(...) I have a friend who, when we were kids, tended to use the F-word far too often. He was careful never to do this in front of his parents. On the one occasion he did, his father ordered him to "Stop f*$%£@&g swearing". I suppose, this is a case (...) (20 years ago, 3-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Right on Schedule
|
|
(...) "Good questions outrank easy answers". I have some of the answers. In this case, my feeling was that John was being rather disingenuous... I was just testing my hypothesis. John chose to make noise rather than be honest; your and Bruce's axe (...) (20 years ago, 3-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Maale Adoumin
|
|
(URL) Further theft.> Scott A (20 years ago, 2-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Right on Schedule
|
|
(...) John, Yet again you have snipped the best part of my post! (...) It takes two to tango John! Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 3-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Right on Schedule
|
|
(...) What's it to you? (...) Aren't you being a little paranoid? (...) Don't you know what you do when you assume? JOHN (20 years ago, 3-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Right on Schedule
|
|
(...) Did I give you reason that I didn't? (...) Are you impuning Scott's communicative abilities? (...) Is that rhetorical question? ???? (20 years ago, 3-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Right on Schedule
|
|
(...) Who wants to know? And why do you think they are interested? Am I wrong to assume you don't appreciate someone who has all the questions one could ever want? (20 years ago, 3-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Right on Schedule
|
|
(...) John, since when have you let the facts get in the way of a good story? John Neal, Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:10:12 GMT: "Scuds are flying everywhere-- where the hell did they come from? It's all been a big lie. The fact is that Bush was right." ;-) (...) (20 years ago, 2-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Dude, you've flat out told me to stay out of discussions where I've had more authority to participate than you, or where the only person who really had authority to answer was known to be incommunicado at that time. You may not be seeing (...) (20 years ago, 31-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Right on Schedule
|
|
(...) Unless you have specific, fact based allegations to make, why not keep your stoopid mouth shut? JOHN (20 years ago, 30-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Right on Schedule
|
|
(...) "it would be best if the arrest or killing of any HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston. How does he get away with this? Are you guys (...) (20 years ago, 30-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) You have many exasperating habits, but exhaustively enumerating them here is not likely to be productive. I think you need to get over your notion that I'm out to persecute you or whatever paranoid notion it is you hold. (...) I don't see the (...) (20 years ago, 30-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
