 | | Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
(...) Actually, that's how it started. I even pointed out that many of my answers were hardly serious, or not even necessarily my own viewpoint. I just thought Scott's santimonious self-righteousness need a bit of puncturing. (...) Tymbrimi. No "n". (...) (23 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
(...) I suppose it is obvious to everyone except Scott, but I'm not defending U.S. actions to any particular degree, I'm just objecting to Scott's axe-grinding and one-sided presentations. And I'm a liberal! I hate Bush. I don't like Israel's (...) (23 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) I agree!! Dave K -who is making his manilla folder bigger by the minute! (23 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
(...) If you're a Tymbrini, there's got to be a practical joke coming here soon before we get to the denoument of this thread. :-) I can hardly wait! Speaking of practical jokes, did you ever notice that "Tymbrini" contains "Brin"? That has to have (...) (23 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
(...) Notice how you never answer questions? That you just shift to a new attack? Iraq is not a destablizing force? Just say yes or no for once, and *then* append your explanations instead of this constant dodging. (...) Actually, yes, but not as (...) (23 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
(...) Hey, "He who mentions Hitler first has lost the argument". Go right ahead! :-) Scott, c'mon. Stop and look at your answer. Here I accuse you of grinding an axe against the United States, and all you do is try to sharpen it further. Who do you (...) (23 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) You zany understator! Ignoring for a moment the question of the polling machines (ie, modern, well-maintained machines in largely republican districts and archaic, run-down machines in largely democratic districts) I don't have the info in (...) (23 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
(...) It all boils down to how many lives would have been saved/lost, and what value you put on them. If OBL comes back to annoy us, that will have to be put in the equation too. As will any moderate Muslim backlash. How many Afghan lives is 1 (...) (23 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) Whoa, calm your jets there Chris--my whole post was rather in a humourous vein and was light hearted... I know your issues for your fractured voting system. I seem to recall that after the Florida fiasco, that someone went back and recounted, (...) (23 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) How so? There was an election, the results were certified, challenged in court, and allowed to let stand. You may not agree with all the various court decisions made by various courts(1) but it's a bit of a stretch to say he was appointed, ne? (...) (23 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) Depends how he handles Desert Storm II; the first propaganda exercise didn't win a re-election for Dad (though the rest of his cabinet was reinstated in 2000, of course). Here's a puzzle for the Constitutionally-aware among us: Since W was (...) (23 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) That, and that this was apparently the action of a local law enforcement officer... (23 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) "Another term"?!? We didn't even vote him in for a SINGLE term! Dave! Comin' at ya from behind the chain link fence! (23 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) You aren't listening! We didn't vote him in in the first place. Surely in his current position, he will be able to rig the vote using even more convincing tactics. We'll have him for _at least_ another four years. (I wonder how much republican (...) (23 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
(...) danger (...) about? (...) troops. (...) I wanted to insert a comment. I'm agreeing with Bruce by and large in this thread (because he doesn't _at all_ seem to be defending the US' naughtiness) but on this one point, I knew exactly what Scott (...) (23 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) btw, if I haven't said it yet... I do hope that you and your fellow citizens do not vote this person in for another term. Yeah, you're stuck with 'im for another few years but then "vote the incompotent iggit outta office!!--send 'im (...) (23 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) Ship 'em to Canada--we have folks who throw pies 'n stuff into the faces of our politicians, 'specially the PM :) Signs--baah! I'd have put a banner across the street! ;) Reading thru these two articles, looks like the police chief is falling (...) (23 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(URL) a followup here and elsewhere: (URL) suppose that the sign-carriers can take comfort in the fact that at least they weren't shipped to Cuba... Dave! (23 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
(...) ...for how much of his track record did he have the support of the ‘West’? Did we act when he started gassing his own people? Was Bush Sr not willing to let his invasion of Q8 go with only mild rumblings until Thatcher convinced him (...) (23 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
(...) Shall I compare Bush to Hitler? The fact that some of what Bush Jr suggests the USA should do is against international law should be enough. (...) I’ll tell you what, you show me which facts you think I am omitting. (...) You mean I did not (...) (23 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Who has the biggest gun, perhaps? Cheers Richie (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(...) "Logic" classes. It badly plagiarizes the popular but flawed "justified true belief" definition for knowledge, Venn diagrams which bastardize the law of excluded middle, and that stupid verse about the bear dancing. It shows a distaste for the (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) I'm not sure what the greater crime is; the fact that they happily relinquished a civil liberty, or the fact that they are not likely going to get it back. (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) One would hope that these outlandish drug laws might be coming to an end... (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2nd Amendment -- Bare Bones
|
|
(...) Well, perhaps there is no resolution -- we certainly have more than one instance of bad law, bad stare decisis, coming down from the high court...and it does annoy. The court has, in particular, been guilty of making bad law that is in the way (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom in America (The Chicago 8)
|
|
(...) Wow, I didn't know any of that, thanks for sharing and for providing those spring-board links. (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(...) Not that ambiguous I'd hoped. I was just being evil. In part, I quoted something from the last day or so of this newsgroup's postings -- I'd not want to call it out in particular beyond what I have done. In the main, I think your purpose and (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | My3ers Briggs chatter (was Re: Is this)
|
|
If you have questions about the test, READ THE BOOK it was originally published in, or one of the others (see note). Go to a library. It's good for you. The terms used in the test are defined in the book. The type indicator is not a general theory (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(...) Agree. I can see someone looking at the example with the company buying the half-million dollar purchase, commenting on how obviously absurd it was to consider it "reasonable", and then going ahead and making the same mistake without a 2nd (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | A bounty on spammers
|
|
(URL) like this idea (without having analysed it very closely, it may have holes). (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(...) But not always, regrettably. Yes, I agree. It is good to be able to remind people that debate involves reason or it isn't debate. Interesting discussion perhaps but not debate. We have a number of high quality debaters here and I think we all (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2nd Amendment -- Bare Bones
|
|
(...) Heh. I think that this is the exact crux of the problem. I confess that I am not as well-read on this subject as my peers here, but a lot of what I've read identifies the first clause of the amendment as the vital part. I can't get too deep (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(...) You know, I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic here, or not. Certainly mocking, but your target is ambiguous. If you honestly feel the link I posted is worse than useless, why not just say so? James (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(...) What? I don't get it. So, like a chess game, after a certain number of similar moves, it must end. I'm done here. O wait, you mean I wasn't playing chess? It wasn't clever or interesting? It wasn't even a stalemate? I don't even know what I am (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 2nd Amendment -- Bare Bones
|
|
Here is the quote part: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This could just as easily read: Because a free state must protect itself (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(...) It makes a handy and compelling virtual stick to beat unreasonable people with? And at times, pretty much everyone in here is guilty of unreasoning. Certainly the strong disconnect between reasons and conclusions has been observed here, in (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(...) Interesting article but I couldn't tell what it was you thought were doing when you cited it. :-) Or why it's a must read. The people that would benefit from reading it won't do so or won't understand the point it makes. :-) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Big things (was Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal))
|
|
The following post of James's is off-topic for debate. :-) But it's neat anyway. XFUT geek Let's see, we have John Deere prototyping walker/spider timber harvesters, and Caterpillar prototyping mechs. What's next? GM showing hovercars? Turboprop (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(URL) there an off-topic curator? This article should be in the .debate sidebar. IMHO, of course. :) James (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) But regulation doesn't mean directing. The militia doesn't need government direction, that's what the army is for (even if it shouldn't be). (...) I expect that a chain of command of some kind would evolve. (...) Each of us. (...) There isn't (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) I don't like the idea of folks just running around with nukes and contagions unchecked. But I'm not willing to say that the 2nd only applies to man-portable arms. If we agree that the point is to enable The People to revolt, then it seems (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Big things (was Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal))
|
|
(...) Interesting note in reference to the Aliens Power Loader - Caterpillar actually built it, and it actually works. Well, sort of. The footage of the loader lifting heavy things and walking around with them is live footage - what they don't show (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
(...) And that means said foreign policy must be analyzed in a vacuum? Nonsense. You are doing so because it suits your purpose and you explanation is just an excuse. (...) What? Not even "facts" this time? (...) You didn't answer it before, and you (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
Pushing the envelope of "acceptable" subject divergence... (...) That makes sense. In terms of fiction, if Joe Author says "what I meant here was this..." then I don't give a hoot; if it's not in the text, then it's not in the text. That's why, for (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) <snip> Bring on the mechs!!! I would love to see a load lifter a la "Aliens" or an ED-209 (under human control, of course) stomping about! Dunno if all that Japanimation mech stuff is (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) I hear you. And if person X says "this is what person Y meant" I tend to discount that. Especially if it's some time later. But if person X says "this is what *I* meant when I wrote this 2 months ago" I tend to give that a lot of credence. And (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) Maybe that's my stalling point. As a pseudointellectual dissector of texts (ie, English Lit. major) I have huge problems in applying "intent" to the meanings of works. In fiction, authorial intent is all but irrelevant; it may be different in (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) No, I don't think it can be creditably argued... again, the Federalist Papers are clear on this point, the intent was that arms means the best technology available at the time to armies, or better, if it was commercially available. To me that (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Jocular self-deprecation (Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!)
|
|
Subject line changed in deference to Tom Stangl's request for topic purity! 8^) (...) Hey, give me a break--it was late! 8^0) Dave! FUT OT.fun (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) While I agree with the overall thrust of your argument, I think we need to be cautious with phrases like this one. If we're going to stick rigidly to the "back then" definitions of the language of The Constitution, then it can be credibly (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Medical Marijuana
|
|
From the LP newsletter I get, posted in its entireity... poses an interesting dilemna with respect to states rights and how far a state can go in deviating, and how far a state can go in resisting encroachment on states rights - start - Libertarians (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Freedom in America (The Chicago 8)
|
|
A funny thing happened to some folks on their way to making public their disenfranchisement from the then current political establishment in the year 1968. The police infiltrated their groups (thereby abridging the free exercise of the right to (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New newsgroup
|
|
(...) lugnet.off-topic.deb...e.politics Would be better. ;) Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
(...) What do you expect, this thread is about US foreign policy! (...) Where do you want me to start, Adam and Eve? (...) You have asked me that already. (...) You have misunderstood me. Bush wants to liberate the people of Iraq. While he says (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) In fairness, England must be damned close to total gun control. I know it's not total but lack the details -- perhaps Scott or someone else can supply further details. While seeing what google would cough up on it, I found this: (URL) is from (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) What the...?! Dave!, you have taken part in these discussion about Jury nullification before -- I have to assume you know all about it. Search "Jury nullification" in this newsgroup, both Larry and I have discussed it many times before (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | My3rs-Briggs waste of time (was Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?)
|
|
ENOUGH already! This thread, as usual for many in .debate, no longer has a DAMNED thing to do with the Subject. If you are going to continue this tomfoolery, at least continue it under a new Subject, so people can easily set it on Ignore. I was (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) Speaking of faulty notions... Name me one country, past or present, where ONLY the police and armed services were allowed to have guns, that is NOT a dictatorship. -Mike Petrucelli (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Hey, that's neat! Do you know if this has happened in a major case in modern times? Dave! (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) A fine question! Off the top of my head I'd say that too general a framework (as I perceive Myers-Briggs to be) isn't much more useful than no framework at all. As you've correctly stated, the user needs to be aware of the limitations of the (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
Much snippage (...) It's in the federalist papers (which I would argue, since they are by the authors of the constitution and which are contemporaneous, ARE valid as a way to gauge meaning and intent) but I forget exactly. I don't think it's any of (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Depends on who you ask. Most judges will tell you it is not your place as a juror to weigh the justness of the law, that your duty is only to the validity and applicability of the facts and that you have no power to judge (nullify) law. (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) No - it would seem close and I understand you thinking that, but not really. I merely wish to establish one thing before moving on to the next. If Joe Blow walking down the street suddenly spotted the 2nd Amendment, what would be his (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Fair enough. Duty is not the word I would have chosen, but I would more or less agree with you on this, although I'm not sure that attaching something extra or some privilege is appropriate. (...) I've seen terms defined on LUGNET which are a (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I wonder how this does/would work in practice. Regulation of an armed body by individuals would not appear to be too effective. For instance, do you see, in a time of crisis in the US, a militia sponteneously arising from its citizenry, and, (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Check. OK, how about a "duty" that it's OK to shirk, but that if you don't shirk, gets you something extra, some privilege (I just can't spell that word!) you'd normally not get. (c.f. _Starship Troopers_ in which only those that served in the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Voluntary duty? I think that's a contradiction by any normal definition of 'duty'. Paraphrasing from Merriam Webster... - conduct due to parents and superiors - obligatory tasks that arise from one's position - a moral or legal obligation (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all processes in a simulation
|
|
(...) It runs into the same logical flaws as religious belief - there is no evidence, or way to acquire credible evidence within the context of the simulation, therefore it is on faith. The principle of Occam's Razor applies, and the simplest answer (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) For the first time today, I laughed out loud. Thanks ++Lar FUT to which LEGO on-topic group?? Dave K. (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) Thanks for calling me on that Larry--it was a litle over the top--we get too close sometimes. And I will recant the other slaps in the face as well. My apologies. (...) Not trying to. (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Bzzt. LEGO(r) is off topic for this group. :-) (...) Me too but that's irrelevant. (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) Oh if only wishing made it so. Out of context? Where? Not one reply, rebuttal, refute, nada... Everything I laid out followed a very logically made construct, not of *my* making, but of your founding fathers making. I choose to read *all* the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) The point I just made to Bruce stands here too. You don't get to use "common, everyday english". The phrase "well regulated militia" does not mean what you think it does. It means what it meant then, with the meanings of the words as they were (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Ok, two questions: 1. Is there any method of understanding personality in a way which allows one to make guarded generalizations that you feel is sufficiently objective to be useful? 2. Do we just not bother trying to understand different (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Let me try... I don't know about Chris, but I personally misunderstood this: (...) I'm taking it to mean that you think we have to use the constitution's exact words only and not any contemporaneous writings by the same authors which expand (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all processes in a simulation
|
|
(...) Are you saying you don't buy it? I finished it and I have to admit it's a persuasive argument as written. So either he's right or there is some assumption left out or logic flaw... (certainly possible!) To a certain extent it doesn't matter (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) The question of what is and what is not a crime is determined by (in many cases centuries of) tradition and by societal consensus. The question of what is "INFP" and what is "ENTP" is determined by the whim of Myers-Briggs. For that matter, (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) Now here's a debate I'm so moveable on is not really funny--my girlfriend, taking the courses at the Institute of Christian Studies, expounds the ideals that come with PM--that there is literally no one "right way" of doing (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) I'm not sure that I'd say the test is arbitrary. If we are to discount any subjective things, then there is a lot which totally falls apart (for an example related to the original post in this thread, demonstrate to me that there is no (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) Then keep reading starting with the many links I have already provided -- convincing you isn't my job. I keep talking about context and legislative intent and you want to argue about words from specific quotes -- taken out of context! I am (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New newsgroup
|
|
(...) I'll fall in line with the majority on this one, but is my humble opinion that the thoughts and ideas expressed in o.t-d are for the express purview of o.t-d, and the participants thereof, and anything that goes on here shan't affect (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Deeper and deeper... In an English course a few years ago we discussed that bane of rational thought: Postmodernism. In a clever ploy to make PM seem like the thing to be, the author of one of our texts assembled list that I will paraphrase: (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) And sometimes, when we've been talking about something for sooo long, we get to a pause in the conversation, we look around, and we ask-- "What were we discussing again?" (psst--LEGO and how much fun it is!!!! :) ) Who here loves LEGO? Me! (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) It may be a good start to discuss what people think the differences between Introvert and Extrovert Intuitive and Sensing Feeling and Thinking Perceiving and Judging Though, looking at it now, it probably isn't because even these global ideas (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) Well, you could choose to call my opinion 'trolling', however, I know I'm not. (...) And in each and every instance you quoted, I looked at the entire quote, and found that I read it differntly than you. I pointed out it should be interpreted, (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) That's too cryptic for me. Guess I'll have to misunderstand you, too. Bruce (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
|
|
(...) Inasmuch as your pro-justice axe only seems to be aimed at the U.S., I beg to differ. (...) How's this for a fact: you haven't addressed "They present only so much of the story as is convenient for their cause." Claiming that you stick to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) But that's the whole problem--the so-called "personality types" are as subjective as astrological assessments or phrenological readings. And so are the criteria that make up each "type." (...) Trouble is, you can usually discern when you're (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Well sure, for you. But what about the rest of us? 8^) Dave! (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | New newsgroup
|
|
Isn't it time for Lugnet.politics? Duq (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Me, I like to read someone else's horoscope and pretend that it was intended for me and me alone! I mean, it was -- right?! =) -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
David: I am trying hard to respect your words, but I get the funny idea that this is just one long troll for you. Either that or you have some kind of blinders on over this particular subject. Those quotes were just the tip of the iceberg -- there (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all processes in a simulation
|
|
(...) Pat Shepard (posted here a few years ago a few times) worked for me at MU and had dropped out of the PhD program in philosophy to learn Flash and stuff. He seemed to pretty seriously believe in this. But then he was a seminary student for a (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
I guess I misunderstood. But unfortunately, I still do. Chris (...) clear. (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all processes in a simulation
|
|
Quoting Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com>: (...) hate to tell you, but you wouldn't know if you're running on an RCX - since to simulate each second you experience the RCX would have an infinite amount of time to compute it, it's power is (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) I think we have to understand when subjective measurements are being used, but I don't think we need to reject them. Food preferences are totally subjective, but should someone ignore them because they don't have the objective data on why they (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) I was being a little brash, my point was that perhaps it should be updated to reflect the nature of life today. I doubt TJ foresaw the nature of modern weaponry. (...) lol Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: neighbors
|
|
Quoting Christopher Weeks <clweeks@eclipse.net>: (...) don't forget the white gowns and pointy hats! (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) Absolutely true. Someone in this thread said a while back that *any* change to the foundational principles of US law would have to follow the *process* that is currently in place to get such a change made. He said that it is the *process* that (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) That's not what I said. (...) Blair's OK, he's just a little power mad. If you look close enough, you can see it in his eyes... Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
