 | | More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) I'm not sure that it's possible to write this and assure that it won't be taken the wrong way, and maybe since I'm responding to something a month old, I should just let it go, but as you've already guessed, I'm not going to. (I'm going to (...) (26 years ago, 21-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: lugnet.foreign.policy (was: lugnet.religion.flame)
|
|
(...) I happen to know that some people in the US would agree. and later wrote again: (...) Wrong. I think it is up to us. I think this because as a society we have taken on the burden of opposing tyranny world-wide. I support this stance, but (...) (26 years ago, 21-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Okay, that's the last straw (was Re: Translating catalogues)
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <36A68964.87B295D4@v...er.net>... (...) I figured your philosophy would require you to say something like "that's their right and if you don't like it, suck it up and go somewhere else." Jesse ___...___ Jesse The (...) (26 years ago, 21-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | SF Story (was Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this)
|
|
(...) check my back issues of Science Fiction Age for the author and title. The action took place on a lunar colony, IIRC. I forget who won the case, though. Chad (26 years ago, 8-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Profanity (was Re: Trains)
|
|
I'd hardly call that a profanity... nor 'hell', but that tends to get picked on a lot on American TV shows too. But we're rapidly heading off-topic here - the problem is that Lego trains resemble no kind of (mother-flippin') train that is currently (...) (26 years ago, 8-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: High Crimes and Misdemeaners (was Impeachment)
|
|
I think you're right, although it seems to imply that a president could be impeached for jaywalking. The upshot appears to be that whatever the House and Senate consider impeachable is impeachable. as evah, John C. (...) (26 years ago, 7-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
(...) I did some digging and I could not find it either. Well, somebody ELSE said it was, and I should have verified it before I alleged. But I'd be willing to bet (since you can't call me on it, they're all dead now) that what I outlined was what (...) (26 years ago, 6-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
Well ... we could go ad nausium on this subject ... it's getting old ... Now for something completely different ... What about the new Drudge report possibly linking Clinton to a 13-year old boy in Arkansas? (URL) for the whole story. (these guys (...) (26 years ago, 5-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
(...) Cool. Thanks for the site. But it does, to my mind, state clearly that lying under oath is perjury. Period. There's no way around it. So we're back to my original point: it's prosecuted so little in this country that turning it into an (...) (26 years ago, 5-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
(...) This, to me, is one of the worst things about this whole affair. Saying he didn't have sex with her - ok, that's a lie but I'll grant that it was simply a lie by a gutless adulterer trying to cover his ass. Actually saying things like, "well, (...) (26 years ago, 5-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
