 | | Re: From the New Republic: A Argument for a New Liberalism
|
|
As an outsider looking in, it appears to me that if the "Liberals" what power all they have to do is shout about god a bit and bash gays a little. It is that simple! ;) Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Custom Space: Obsidian Stealth Strike Craft for sale - The Brickee Mart
|
|
(...) I hope you guys (including Marc Sandlin) didn't think I thought i was copied on! As I said, my ship and Chris' are similar, but i don't think he even saw mine when he did his. I never meant to accuse Chris, let that be clear please! I was (...) (20 years ago, 18-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: From the New Republic: A Argument for a New Liberalism
|
|
(...) I can't speak to that question. It's not the argument I've made and I do not think that it's the argument that Peter (the New Republic editor) made either. I think rather he's making the argument to his own brethren that they are missing the (...) (20 years ago, 18-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | It's over, please...
|
|
Um, you do realize that the issue has ended. Please stop facilitating the discussion. I've been enlightened and have changed my ways of going about posting messages here and seeing the AFOL community in general. Ergo: It's over. Let it die. I was (...) (20 years ago, 18-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: From the New Republic: A Argument for a New Liberalism
|
|
(...) If the argument is that all liberals have no validity because of Michael Moore, and therefore Kerry lost, why then hasn't every conservative lost because of the Big Fat Lying Drug-Addict? :-) -->Bruce<-- League of Green-Eyed Devil's Advocates (20 years ago, 17-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | From the New Republic: A Argument for a New Liberalism
|
|
Being against the war in Iraq does NOT mean being for Totalitarian Islam. Or, why Kerry lost and why Michael Moore is still a weenie... From The New Republic, specifically here: "A Fighting Faith (AN ARGUMENT FOR A NEW LIBERALISM.) by Peter Beinart (...) (20 years ago, 17-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just say no
|
|
(...) Okay, now that *is* pretty ridiculous, and they're succumbing in real, large-scale terms to the false dichotomy you identified. Outside of your direct experience, most of what I've heard has defaulted to "we have rules that apply to everyone (...) (20 years ago, 17-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just say no
|
|
(...) Which is what I favor. And what I think Buckley favors too, although it would surely be harder to convince you of that than me. He's a knee jerk old school conservative but even stopped clocks are right twice a day (well, once a day if they're (...) (20 years ago, 17-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just say no
|
|
(...) As long as the threat profile is reasonably specific and based on sound policy, rather than "I think that guy looks Arabish/let's frisk him," which is what Buckley's describing. Here's the part where he plays his hand: "The point is not (...) (20 years ago, 17-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just say no
|
|
(...) Seems pretty clear to me (1). He's asking why make things easier for the hordes of people that clearly are little no threat whatever in order to be a bit less PC to people that fit the threat profile more closely? Quoting from the part you (...) (20 years ago, 17-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
