To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / *26951 (-10)
  Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
 
(...) That fills me with (URL) skepticism> (...) (reverting to FTX:-) (...) He was a known entity when re-elected. You had your chance and muffed it. Wait until '08. (...) Specify, and include to whom we should apologize. (...) If you really (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: A few things...
 
(...) Personally, I prefer pin-up (URL) nose art> It still offends, but has the added bonus of (presumably) tweaking feminists:-) JOHN (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: A few things...
 
(...) Correct. Because then we would have been satisfied that he didn't have WMDs at his disposal to possibly provide to terrorists. <snip off-topic material> (...) No, Scott, it is not "clear" by any stretch of the imagination. That is your (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: A few things...
 
(...) As well you shouldn't-- looked natty to me. JOHN (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Newsweek (to touch on something I said in a n erlier post)
 
(...) Correction: Clinton was impeached specifically for lying under oath. He should have said "I refuse to answer, because it's none of your business" instead of lying. But he looks pretty small time compared to these guys (and I'm one of those (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: A few things...
 
(...) BIGOT! <okay, only kidding> (...) My point which I believe Lar picked up on is this: you expressed laments about continued support for the war. So, I asked, what should we do? Leave? You responded by saying we shouldn't have gone in the first (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
 
Someone expressed frank misgivings about the formatting of this post: (URL) can I say? The FTX shows up just fine on my browser. But because I am a kind and generous soul, I am reposting in plain text -----repost begins here----- Here are a few (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Newsweek (to touch on something I said in a n erlier post)
 
And the Teflon Prez... (URL) it turns out that the FBI has documents showing that detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, complained about the mistreatment of the Koran and that many said they were severely beaten. The documents specifically include an (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: A few things...
 
(...) Hey, I'm not playing to the cheap seats. Looks fine on the web. Dave! (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: A few things...
 
(...) Wow, that's almost unreadable in a newsreader... Not sure how this looked in the original submission, or how it looks in the web view, but people might want to pay attention to their postings formatting... Frank (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR