 | | Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal
|
| | | (...) That was my point. (...) *You* could be in the majority too if you'd pull your head out and join the Republican party to work for getting liberatarian agendas implemented, rather than support the go-nowhere, impotent Losertarian party. You are (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Vote against/for... —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | (...) Right. I'd be happy to see some of those things too, dingus. If you think the war will pay for itself, or be a short easy to pay for war; then you need to reduce your lithium intake. Bush will raise the national debt paying off his (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Vote against/for... —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | (...) I'm sorry for 'throwing it out there' to begin with... well, no, not actually. I actually liked this thread up until the word 'dingus' appeared (though to be said, the (sic) response was a jab as well--I think we all agreed to leave the (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) That's very nice. You should realize that such immature ad hominems only serve to reflect the complete lack of character of the user. (...) The estimated loss due to 9-11 was $95,000,000,000 USD. What do you suppose the cost (in terms of $$$, (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Vote against/for... —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) Yeah, Larry--you should join the NRA/Christian Coalition/Enron whore known as the GOP. And John, since you're fond of overlooking reality when it favors your agenda, let's not forget that you can make no true claims of majority. Voter turnout (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Vote against/for... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) Slinging names is not the way to keep this debate where it needs to be. Because when you use even a mild one like "Losertarian" you enable ill mannered rabble rousers to do the same (in kind, but far worse in degree). I find the use of the (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Vote against/for... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) See also this analysis... (URL) an admittedly partisan source) My favorite excerpt: "It marks the third consecutive election in which a Libertarian has cost the Republican Party a Senate seat," wrote Miller. "If there had been no Libertarian (...) (22 years ago, 23-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) If that's all your party ever wants to aspire to be (a spoiler), then knock yourselves out. But think about this: think about a senate with *no* clear majority and libertarian Republicans controlling the swing votes. That's power. What you (...) (22 years ago, 23-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Vote against/for... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) It's not. But we're performing a useful service to the country nonetheless. A filibuster proof Senate with the likes of Bob Barr running some things is a scary thought to behold. (...) c /libertarian Republicans/Libertarians/ and you're on to (...) (22 years ago, 23-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Vote against/for... —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Give it a rest. I wrote this post in an effort to stop your disruptive behaviour: (URL) man enough to either stick to the issues or keep quiet. Scott A (22 years ago, 25-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Vote against/for... —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) I prefer Mike Huben's analysis: "The Libertarian Party is well on its way to dominating the political landscape, judging from its power base of 100+ elected dogcatchers and other important officials after 25 years of effort." ;) More here: (...) (22 years ago, 25-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Vote against/for... —Fiona Dickinson
|
| | | | (...) Perhaps instead of spending so much money on fighting a war, the ruling party over there in the USA should spend some more money on education so that you could learn the difference between your and you're. Maybe if there wasn't so much pig (...) (22 years ago, 9-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Vote against/for... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) Perhaps you'd care to prove the correlation between "more money spent on education" and "better education"? It hasn't held up too well under close examination so far. BTW, welcome to .debate! (22 years ago, 9-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Vote against/for... —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) It is anacdotal, but the EU countries spend more of thier GDP on education, and have higher adult literacy than the USA. At best, US school spending is average. Scott A (22 years ago, 10-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) Well, that's the problem now, isn't it? There *are* those in this world who can't just live and let live. If we don't subscribe to their particular POV, then we must be killed. There isn't much room for compromise there. And BTW, those who nit (...) (22 years ago, 9-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
