 | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur
|
| | | (...) How wrong you are: "Israel has gotten, and continues to get, a raw deal in the world media, I have no idea why." (URL) A (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | | (...) Dan (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) I was being rather sarcastic. Nobody is really wrong - we all have our opinions. Scott A (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) So it's OK for you to quote out of context, then? (...) out of context, I would have chosen this one... (...) Since you never effectively answered it. (although you did post, what, 4 responses to it?... Why so many? Couldn't compose your (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) No, and that is not what I did. (...) I think I did. I _still_ think you are wrong. I do not feel that Israel "administers justice fairly" or respects the "rule of law". Eric Olsen agreed with me on this: (URL) chose to muddy the waters with (...) (23 years ago, 15-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
