 | | Re: A few things...
|
|
(...) <snipping> (...) Yes. Point? <snip> (...) Who knows? I know he aided and abetted terrorists. Whether they were the actually ones involved in terrorism against the US is anyone's guess. The point is that he was a friend of terrorism and an (...) (19 years ago, 31-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
|
(...) We provide plenty of details. It's just you'd rather believe detainees lying from a playbook rather than your government. Again I give the standard "we aren't perfect", but we do a good job; better than any other. (...) You are changing the (...) (19 years ago, 31-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
|
(...) While almost half of the American population agrees with you, a little more than half felt otherwise. And, here soon, someone else will have to handle this mess. And, you are correct, this is a mess. What would really go far in cleaning it up (...) (19 years ago, 29-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
|
(...) Actually it is grossly rigged, just not the way most folks think of it. It is rigged in to a brain fried, corporate sponsored 2 party system. If you're part of any other party , you might as well pucker up, because your going to end up kissing (...) (19 years ago, 28-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
|
(...) What is beyond reason is blindly believing a government that refuses to divulge details of the confinements. (...) Gay Marriage? Go ahead, tell me you support it. If you do, then you've been lying for a long time. (...) Gay Marriage. (...) No (...) (19 years ago, 28-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A few things...
|
|
(...) ...based on a case made by the USA. (...) Bush trusted him, why don't you? (...) No John. It is a question directed at you. I shall try again: Can you list any terror acts against the USA which SH sponsored? (...) What is the difference (...) (19 years ago, 28-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
|
(...) On the contrary--the problem facing the Democratic party is that it has too long embraced a policy of placating the Republicans in the hope of catching some right-leaning moderates. As a result, the party has compromised its identity. (...) On (...) (19 years ago, 28-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
|
(...) How would you know? The Diebold machines can make up whatever results they're programmed to make up, and there is no paper trail of validated vote receipts to audit... recounts consist of checking the same files again to see if they have the (...) (19 years ago, 28-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
|
(...) That's my whole point, Tom! The election wasn't rigged, for pete's sake! Why is it that every time the Dems loose it must be due to fraud? Deal with reality! Dems should be more worried that their party has been hijacked by Lefty wackos like (...) (19 years ago, 28-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
|
(...) So in other words you have no problem with a voting system that is rigged? Something that this country is based upon? You've trumpeted in here many times before about our great democracy, and how the majority should rule, yet you have no (...) (19 years ago, 28-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A few things...
|
|
(...) The ones the UN believed that he hadn't destroyed. (...) What about them? (...) Figures you'd cite someone like Woodward. <yawn> (...) If? That, again, is merely your uninformed opinion. (...) I don't care if he got them from Uranus, it (...) (19 years ago, 28-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
|
(...) I haven't used the newsreader since the first years of LUGNET, and not since the advent of FTX, so it is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma to me as well. (...) As a feature of my fiendish plot, only those who have faith in the UN (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
|
(...) Are you on a newsreader? I've only ever accessed LUGNET via browser, so the whole thing's a mystery to me. (...) You fool! You'll kill us all! One editorial note: When I use Bush's name in a general sense as in "Bush invaded Iraq," of course I (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A few things...
|
|
(...) What WMD's???? But John, what about those poor Iraqis and their thirst for "Freedom"? (...) You need to read Plan of Attack. (...) Even if true, he still posed no threat to the USA(?) (...) Yep, and he got them from Washington. (...) What (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A few things...
|
|
(...) Good try John. As you (and Larry) well know, I said very much more than that. Scott A (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
