 | | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Tsk. Someone from southern california and he doesn't mention the Orange County Register. The Long Beach paper is (was? it's been a while since I've seen it) conservative. The Los Angeles Times is barely left of center. The New York Times: who (...) (21 years ago, 31-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Such an attack is usally groundless and proffered by a person that has no idea what the "left" is really about. The all encompassing "media" is hardly "left." Offhand, I'd say Costello has no real knowledge of "left" or "right" -- I hear a lot (...) (21 years ago, 1-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) I need to remember to put my smily face when I am kidding. No I don't believe the sweeping generalization that all media is biased. My two favorite papers, the Orange county register and the San Bernadino Sun times are both right of center, (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Oh, I actively dislike Shrub. I hope that is very clear, no dodging necessary. I think he is the worst president we have had in my lifetime (which is to say the last 40 years or so). And I hope he is actually the idiot that I think he may be (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) I'm very much on the same lilly pad as Sir Frog here. I've become EXTREMELY uncomfortable in the years since I've watched the Bush dynasty flourish. It all makes a thinking American either very paranoid or disdainful of the American system's (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Hooo boy. The Register is far, far to the right. The Los Angeles Times is barely left of center. Honestly, they both reflect the counties they are in. (...) I gotta agree with this assessment (see above). (...) Conservative: pro laissez-faire, (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote: <snip> (...) Ah, now we are starting to talk about the real enema here;-) JOHN (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Naw, that's no good. Enemas are supposed to provide at least *some* relief. Dave! (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) No, no. I think John is on the right (alimentary) track here. Lawyers and enemas both try and get in the same place. :-) -->Bruce<-- (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) I almost fell outta my chair! If it was a type-o it's really funny. If it's intended, it's still equally as funny! Perfectly said, John! Dave K (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Moooon River! "Hey Doc, you got the whole fist up there?" JOHN (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) I'm afraid I let my personal feelings out a bit-- I'm still reeling from the news that the ACLU deciding to defend that Florida women who wants her driver's license photo ID taken with her veil on. We face more danger to our republic from our (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Hey, we have a situation in Toronto where a 10 year old girl disappeared and the next day was found in pieces in a bag on Toronto Island--the police wanted to take DNA samples of all previously convicted pedophiles in the area and some (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote: <snip> (...) Sorry' it's (URL) a Canadian thing and all... sorry for any confusion Dave K (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) I'm very glad the ACLU is there to take the case. I must say, I hope they lose, and I presume they will since a driver's license is not a right, but it doesn't bother me in the slightest that they took the case. Without the ACLU, all we would (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Having an entity in theory such as the ACLU is probably a Good Thing®, but the extreme, agenda-driving wackos currently running it make it a liability. As you say, any idiot can see that this case has absolutely nothing to do with religious (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Have a read of this: Now dissent is [immoral]: (URL) nation is now at war," said Peter Beinart, the editor of the liberal magazine New Republic. "And in such an environment, domestic political dissent is immoral without a prior statement of (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Hmmm, I find this a sticking point. I believe the right to travel by common conveyance is a right. If it were otherwise I'd be stuck at home unless I were willing to obtain whatever license is necessary to travel -- and then my right to travel (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Allow me to correct myself: a driver's license is specifically enumerated as not a right in California. Other states may be different, though I don't specically know of any that vary from that. The right to travel is in no way prohibited. You (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
Man if I don’t log on for just one day some of these posts just get buried by others. (...) I just had to address this statement. It actually reminded me of the way I felt about Clinton during his presidency. In 1992 when he was first elected I (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Please cite in the Constitution this "right". (...) Bus, train, taxi, airplane, unicycle, bicycle, tricycle, Segway; take your pick. (...) How about theft? (...) Yet another conspiracy? (...) Are you kidding me??? You are asking the state to (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) Totally on the same page with John--driving's a priviledge, not a right, and getting a drivers license, as it stands today in many areas, is getting your picture taken such that when and if (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Shrub has been AWOL and everything about his "military" career was protected and sanctified by Daddy Shrub himself -- give it a rest. It's all well covered up and with the appropriate gloss of "spin", just like his drug and alcohol record. So, (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Article 9 and 10 of the Bill of Rights. Would they license a horse? Don't they license motorcycles and bikes? Aren't the roads called "rights of way." We all have the right to travel -- this was recognized as early as Magna Carta in the common (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Yes, but Clinton remembered one thing, "It's the economy, stupid." People knew that Nixon was a mean man, not an honest man. But they felt he could run the country. Clinton could run the country: not one of your complaints about him precludes (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
<snip> (...) Very good quote. Essentially saying let someone else think and act for me. There have got to be better ways to achieve anti-terrorism goals than promoting fear and division. I wonder how events would have played out post 9/11 had a less (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Digression on Johnson (was Re: Should we be concerned?)
|
|
[The Real Hal Moore]¬ Interview of Lt. General Harold G. Moore by William F. Jasper (URL) recount the bitter anger and frustration that you and others in the military felt concerning the decisions in Washington to allow the Communist forces to have (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) The jury's still out, isn't it? I mean, we're still in the midst of the detentions and profiling, so we can hardly judge Dubya's policies as if they've run their full course. In addition, Dubya's internment of Arabs is worsened because he (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) "The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, and love of soft living and the get-rich-quick theory of life." - Theodore Roosevelt. The consolidation of power that (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Exactly. This "with us, or against us" stuff is crazy. Why can't a person be wholly patriotic and still want a moment to figure out what might be the truly correct response to a crisis? (...) This is why I harp on people's apparent partisan (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) I doubt very seriously that the Powers That Be really would have sat on their hands if they knew 3,000 people would die. My point is that they had all the clues and they should have had a better grip on what was about to happen than they did. (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) I would agree that the two situations are very different, but I would classify your unwillingness to equate the two as leftist spin. Both men were caught in large lies. Nixon was lying directly to the American people, and had he not resigned (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
