Debate : 22254


Off-Topic / Debate / 22254

Re: The partisian trap in California —John Neal

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote: (snip) (...) Though I do not condone the "groping" of women, I think his behavior in the context of Hollyweird is probably par for the course. What is interesting to me is that these women (some (...) (21 years ago, 4-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: The partisian trap in California —Richard Marchetti

(...) Let's for a moment assume these women are being 100% honest. The difference between coming forward back then vs. now is maybe the difference of having a bad momentary encounter vs. the bad guy becoming your elected representative. Think about (...) (21 years ago, 4-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: The partisian trap in California —John Neal

(...) Sorry, I don't buy it. (...) Precisely point out Bush's "lie" about Iraq. Be prepared to show that he knowingly and deliberately, and also specifically (I want quotations) misinformed. (...) I don't know what to make of the media in (...) (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: The partisian trap in California —Richard Marchetti

(...) Just because you ask this question repetitiously doesn't mean it hasn't been answered already, either directly or by a link to an article somewhere. I have answered this question multiple times in this forum before it was asked by you. And (...) (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: The partisian trap in California —John Neal

(...) You can link until the cows come home, but it really proves nothing. Nada. The best you can hope for is that Bush believed intelligence that suggested that WMD still existed (assuming that they indeed don't) and he was wrong. Nobody can prove (...) (21 years ago, 6-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Mike Petrucelli

snip (...) The first phrase of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,..." (...) I consider myself a Christian and I am sick of hearing this nonsense. (...) (...) (21 years ago, 6-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

Go Mike, go!!! A very reasonable and very american approach to the issues raised by John Neal. This is what it should all be about, all of us defending each other's right to liberty in the manner we choose to express it. I bow low to your greater (...) (21 years ago, 6-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) Not applicable, Mike. We are talking about civil unions here. (...) Really? How so? (...) But don't you see? This is what I am talking about! I am talking about social mores, culture, values. (...) I think you are confused in this assessment. (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) The ACLU agrees ideologically with Oliver North? -->Bruce<-- (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) Have you EVER EVEN READ the HOLY BIBLE, John? I'm just going to cut and paste biblical cites from previous posts in this forum. I mean, why waste too much time on the usual John Neal foolishness? (URL) Sadly, many faiths do suborn the use of (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

God's Nature —John Neal

(...) You are kidding, right? (...) Hmmm. So you are telling me that you know that exact nature of God? (...) That they perceived God was and whether God actually was are 2 very different things. (...) What are you implying here? That you understand (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: God's Nature —Richard Marchetti

You're so far gone, there is no way to reply to that. No matter what I might state next you will insist that you can "interpret" the Bible in such a way as to reveal either an error in it, or in my interpretation of it. Everyone get that? The Bible (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: God's Nature —John Neal

(...) Blinkered Bigot! The Bible is not a factual document; it is a book of faith! (...) Hypocrite! Everyone get that? The Bible means whatever (the atheist) Richard Marchetti says it means. (...) The Bible, especially the OT, is anything but (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: God's Nature —Richard Marchetti

(...) Let's make things nice and sparkling clear shall we? You said: "Our God is not the same God of people who murder women and children in His name. If you call that close-minded, so be it." (URL) I showed that the first statement is false on it's (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: God's Nature —Dave Schuler

(...) Whoa! I likewise made reference to A Clockwork Orange just minutes ago. Are we droogs or what?!? Dave! (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: God's Nature —Richard Marchetti

Well done, Droog! You have slooshed the meaning of my slovos. If you had the cutter and I some pretty polly, we could make a very pleasant nochy of it. The Korova, klootches for a Durango 95, some young devotchkas -- it could be real horrorshow. A (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) No we are talking about legal marriages. That is very much the jurisdiction of the first amendment. (...) The silly notion that Christianity is somehow superior to our government and other religions. (...) Well you were talking about legal (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) You confuse me. What is the difference? (...) Again you confuse me. Superior in what way? (...) Again with the confusion. Laws just don't pop up out of thin air. They are based on the morality and sensibility of a given society or culture. (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) If I may wager a guess, I would infer that you yourself identify Christianity (specifically, the version to which you adhere) as superior (for you) in some way to all other faiths and non-faiths. If it were not, then why would you follow your (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) No, because his statement is hopelessly vague and unclear. How can you compare a religion with a government? It's apples and oranges. But you are absolutely correct that I believe Christianity is superior to other religions for me. I know (in (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! Yggdrasil's taproots... —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I couldn't say for sure, but I rather imagine the Rus were followers of the Norse gods. I just can't imagine a bunch of Vikings being secular humanists. :-) -->Bruce<-- League of Green-Eyed Odin's Advocates (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! Yggdrasil's taproots... —John Neal

(...) lol Really? Then you should visit Minnesota sometime;-) Actually, I meant the post Russian revolution USSR (as I'm sure you gathered) JOHN (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! Yggdrasil's taproots... —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Noooo, incorrect! The Vikings that migrated to Minnesota have set up a new religion that was formally worshipped every Sunday, but due to various schismatic cults (ESPN, FOX, CBS, ABC) now worship occasionally on Saturday, Thursday, and Monday (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) Absolutely, if they're both legally consenting adults. If the problems inherent in genetic problems inbreeding can be overcome, I don't even know why they shouldn't be allowed to have children. Aside from these genetic issues, on what basis (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) Then we disagree. (...) Cultural values. (...) As far as we (or they) were able to ascertain God's will. I start from a point that God is Absolute Morality, Absolute Goodness. Any perception of God that is less than that reflects (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) Really? So you're not saying that there's an absolute "wrongness" in such a marriage? I confess, that surprises me. And if our culture evolved (despite the best efforts of hardcore traditionalists), then you'd agree that there's nothing (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) I must take exception to this hypothetical. It has in no way been shown that atheists have any special attraction towards genocide; whereas by contrast, I have elsewhere shown that people of the many Jewish or Xtian faiths must at least admit (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) Good point--let it be thus stipulated. Dave! (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —David Koudys

(...) And on this we disagree. Up until now I've been on the side of angels--I mean Bruce and Hoppy. However, faith does not exclude questions. I question everything I am able, and have become quite disenfranchised with 'Religion'. This does not, in (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Slander. I bleed (and bleed, and bleed) Dodger Blue. None of this Angel stuff for me - especially with those red uniforms and "Edison" field. It's The Big A or nothing! (...) Each person must find their own path to God (the truth, philosophy, (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) I don't see the disagreement here. I think you are saying that you DO allow questions to enter into your faith-schema, and that your faith has so far "survived" (I couldn't think of a better word here) these challenges. I don't think anyone (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) I second that. -Mike Petrucelli (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) Have you ever heard of Marcion, Richard? He was an early heretic who held that the God of Jesus and Yahweh were indeed different Gods entirely. Now, I am no Marcionite, but if I were, wouldn't it be rather intolerant of you to question my (...) (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) That's pretty funny. I consider you largely irrelevant to my life and strong feelings. And indeed, as I thought you might, you are backpedalling -- just not in a way that I find socially acceptable or redeeming. I don't have anything else to (...) (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Justin Pankey

(...) John, I tried to follow this debate as close as possible...forgive me if I’ve missed something. I agree with your general position that God is unchanging, however as far as I read, you’ve only reffered to the God of the Bible as a God of love. (...) (21 years ago, 17-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) God is indeed just and worthy to judge, but I think we must be very careful when trying to ascertain God's Will in certain situations. The tendency is to anthropomorphize God, because God is so behind the confines of our limited understanding. (...) (21 years ago, 19-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Justin Pankey

(...) I disagree that this is not possible. How do you feel about the book of Revelation or Hell in general...don't you see these as God's justice in anger? I agree completely that He loves all equally- put the Bible also says He punishes those who (...) (21 years ago, 19-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) The Revelation to John is a letter to a persecuted Christian Church-- it is about as metaphorical as it gets. As for Hell, I simply believe that Hell is separation from God. (...) I don't think God punishes us for not accepting His perfect (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) Perhaps not the only ones. I guess it depends on one's perspective... General Casts War in Religious Terms (URL) Yet the former commander and 13-year veteran of the Army's top-secret Delta Force is also an outspoken evangelical Christian who (...) (21 years ago, 17-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) Just so no one misses out on my righteous indignation, (URL) here's> my stupendouslyly witty literary swipe at this very same issue. (...) As Al Franken has rightly pointed out, it wasn't God who selected Dubya; it was Clarence Thomas. (URL) (...) (21 years ago, 17-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Thomas Stangl

But you'll never GET such an apology. John is such a PRIDEful Xtian (oops, that's a sin, innit), that he'll never admit that his religion started out of (i.e., is based on), and continues to breed, violence and death. He's a Xtian Bigot, and nothing (...) (21 years ago, 18-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) Come on, Tom. I have a lot of faults, but I wouldn't say "pride" is one of them. In practice I am a pretty tolerant person, and in theory it shouldn't matter what I believe. As far as Christianity breeding violence and death, I don't see it. (...) (21 years ago, 18-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Justin Pankey

(...) I second that! (...) aren't perfect, and to expect Christians to act perfectly is a little over the (...) Which (in a world wide perspective) is certainly not the case with some other religions. Further, the above statement shows a complete (...) (21 years ago, 19-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) Hmmm... let's see, the KKK, neo-Nazis, yep no Christians breeding violence and death at all. (...) Are you serious? (Personally I think you are being sarcastic but I don't know) I mean granted many living in dictatorships can't publicly decry (...) (21 years ago, 19-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) Ah, I see. So you are willing to define a group by the few extremists in it. I guess then that you wouldn't have a problem calling Islam a religion that breeds violence and death, either. JOHN (21 years ago, 19-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) And where exactly did you pull that notion from? I was simply pointing out that Christianity has just as many wacko extremists as other religions. (...) No that would be you at the bottom of this (URL) post> (...) -Mike Petrucelli (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) I think from your equivocation of "Christianity" with "Christians". Christianity as a religion doesn't breed violence and death. Wackos calling themselves "Christians" might. There is a distinction there. (...) This is what worries me: (URL) (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) That is becuase most Palestinians only know what their 'government' tells them. Just as when Bush says country X is a threat and most Americans support him, when Palestinian leaders say their 'country' is being attacked by 'evil Jews', people (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) Dude, your equivocations are sick and offensive! Americans would never support Bush if he advocated the slaughter of innocent women and children! What are you smoking? (...) HELLO, MCFLY???!!! Is there anyone home, Mike? I just got done (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) HELLO, BRAINDAMAGED!!! You did not site a poll stating that the majority of the Palestinian population advocates the murder of innocent women and children. You sited a poll stating that the majority of Palestinians support suicide bombers. (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) None are so blind as those that will not see. Sick and offensive? Take a long look in the mirror, John. (...) How about a SINGLE cite from you worth a damn?! Everything you ever cite is the most slanted, venomous bile ever to spring off the (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

WARNING, VERY DISTURBING IMAGES (was Re: Holy crap! ) —Dave Schuler

(...) Perhaps the smoke you smell is the char of civilian Iraqi flesh. Take a look at these (URL) horrifying images> to see the real payoff of the oil war that Dubya has pushed so enthusiastically. Do not click this link if you are upset by graphic (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: WARNING, VERY DISTURBING IMAGES (was Re: Holy crap! ) —Richard Marchetti

(...) Why should the horrors of real war be off-topic for off-topic? I couldn't willingly look extensively at that material right now, but a brief look at the front page told me enough. OBL? At large. People beyond the very small group in the U.S. (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: WARNING, VERY DISTURBING IMAGES (was Re: Holy crap! ) —David Koudys

(...) Wish I had the transcript of Tina's news report from SNL a few weeks back--A list of things Dubya hasn't been able to find. These days it's gone beyond agonizing frustration when I read about the deaths of soldiers. For what? Is there anymore (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: WARNING, VERY DISTURBING IMAGES (was Re: Holy crap! ) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) And yet you support the notion that these people (the government) should be the only ones with weapons. I'm sorry it had to be said. -Mike Petrucelli (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: WARNING, VERY DISTURBING IMAGES (was Re: Holy crap! ) —David Koudys

(...) Well, the armed forces, the police, the reserves... any group that's "well regulated". Again I'd like any logical justification of private ownership of guns and how that would prevent this sort of thing. Oh wait, you own your guns and Iraq (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: WARNING, VERY DISTURBING IMAGES (was Re: Holy crap! ) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) I shudder to think how bad it would be without our final check. Besides you are still agruing for an untested, let alone an unproven, concept. There is still no evidence supporting your claims that Democracy or Republics can exist without an (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: WARNING, VERY DISTURBING IMAGES (was Re: Holy crap! ) —David Koudys

(...) Canada. Sure we may have people who have guns in the house--my uncle still has his shotgun from his hunting days--but it's not mandated under law. We have no "2nd" or comparable clause thereof. I haven't heard a Canadian say "I have my gun for (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) The usual pro-Israel crap, John. Get a life. Are you able to think critically at all? (...) Um, no there is not. Again another statement so outrageous that it is false on the face of it. When will the lies end, John? Do you think some purpose (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) Hmmm, and what shall I use as a model for critical thinking? The way you critically dismiss the poll? (...) Maybe if only to expose your character (or lack thereof) (...) You mean like this guy: (URL) And standing in a garage and saying (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) I think I'm going to require more proof than your say so -- esp. when practically everything you communicate here is a deeply slanted, bigotted statement. As a matter of fact, I'd like an analysis of statements I have made and how they show me (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) As if on cue... American Jihad (URL) Recently NBC News broadcast footage of Army Lt. General William Boykin, a deputy undersecretary of defense, equating our campaigns in the Middle East to a religious war. Among his arguments: that Islam is (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —David Koudys

(...) <snip> (...) Scary, ain't it? K, all religious debate aside, what do we do when generals and political appointees believe their 'god given mandate'? At what point do the citizens actually shut this fiasco down? Dave K (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) I'd like it shut down immediately. On the other side of things are people like John Neal. I think it would be fair to say that he and I are on completely opposite sides of this issue. And so far we haven't slipped completely into a (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —David Koudys

(...) This I do not know but you have an appointed president tlaking all 'christian values' and letting ownership of endangeded and wild species pass into the hands of the average joe (good legislation there) and started a 'military campaign on (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —Richard Marchetti

(...) See, this is the kind of cohesive backward and forward looking thinking that I don't see from you in other discussions, say about the gun issue. It's all well and good to pat ourselves on the back and say we overcame the witch trials, slavery, (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —David Koudys

(...) The cohesion is there. I think you're just blinded to it. It's an inherent factor in your culture--it's something I noticed when I was in Chicago last week. In one breath a guy I was in a meeting with spoke of 'socialism' as if it was dung on (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) Crappy parents raise stupid kids. (...) Well throughout history we have yet to see a country prove otherwise. Oh wait, that's not proof?! (...) You know you still have not replied to (URL) this> -Mike Petrucelli (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —David Koudys

(...) You didn't say anything new in there at all, Mike. Lets have a looksee-- " Are you joking? “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.” What (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) Well, as Hop-Frog has pointed out numerous times, our founding fathers stated quite clearly when asked that a militia was anyone that is not a government offical. (...) Perhaps that is the modern day definition, but what does that have to do (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —Richard Marchetti

(...) That's true, and more than once I went to great lengths to make the point crystal clear too, with lots of historical references: (URL) 2nd Amendment -- Bare Bones> And gee, that cite is not even that old...last year. I find it annoying when a (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —David Koudys

(...) It hasn't been amply settled. You are not a well regulated militia by any standard of those words. It's a point you consitently avoid--you and others cut right to the "the rights of the people to own guns shall not be infringed" Further, you (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —Richard Marchetti

(...) Did you even read that cite again? Read the whole 3 message thread please: **From Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia: POSSE COMITATUS. These Latin words signify the power of the county. Or yet again in other words: the power of (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —David Koudys

(...) And we discussed this before--and you added addendums to the idea of "whole people" to not include those that are too young, old, infirm, or mentally unstable. Did you also stop to consider that, in context of the day and age, that "whole (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —Richard Marchetti

(...) Not at all. You would be 100% correct as to the meaning at the time of ratification. But collectively, the 13th and 14th Amendment gave freed slaves the status of Freemen. Knowing precisely what that meant, many freed slaves had to obtain guns (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —David Koudys

(...) This has nothing to do with morality. It has everything to do with your selective interpretation. Either the 2nd is archaic, for you do not supply militia members as needed from 'the people' anymore, the people who join the militia today are (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —Richard Marchetti

(...) What does my opposition to a standing army have to do with the need, or right, to a militia? The militia is de facto -- it is the people themselves. There is no wiggling. I am not telling you that we are currently doing things in strict (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) I agree if there were laws or even constitutional rights that caused the deaths of innocent life I would be all for removing them too. Of course removing the right of law abiding citizens to have weapons does not reduce the crime rate, even (...) (21 years ago, 23-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —David Koudys

(...) Not to really be flippant--so gov't officials aren't allowed to own guns? Any time I've heard of bills being presented to "regulate" the sales, distribution, or ownership of guns in your country, a huge furor erupts. Guns, or the use thereof, (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) LOL. No they just are not considered part of the militia. (...) You do know that there are more Americans in formally declared militia groups than in the US Military right? (...) Yes but human nature has not. (...) I suppose we can both agree (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —Dave Schuler

(...) Is that true? I don't dispute it, but I wasn't aware of it. If it's true, then what level of gov't official is included? Dave! (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) Well I think it was more a tongue in cheek reply to a tongue in cheek question. It is based off of the statement by George Mason “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” I would say that is (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —Richard Marchetti

(...) In the main, the militia merely means an armed group of freepersons that are not otherwise playing some kind of official role or duty. I mean, a sheriff might call together a posse comitatus and work closely with one -- but he remains the (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —David Koudys

(...) <snip> (...) Selective interpretation at it's finest! Now look who's disregarding the founders, framers, fathers. Nicely done! Dave K (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

The Gun Debate Ad Nauseum —Richard Marchetti

(...) What can you mean?! You're starting to be quite the jerk about this subject. I write a long explanation and you hit me with some vague argument without explanation. I won't waste my time on you again like this... It was my understanding that (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: The Gun Debate Ad Nauseum —David Koudys

(...) Well, I decided to pull a "Richard" and delete the entire post and put in its place a trite answer. Seems to work well for you, so I thought it'd work equally as well for me. Dave K (21 years ago, 23-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —Richard Marchetti

(...) Well, I'd have to say the recent (last 50-75 years) histories of many South American countries is also proof that not having guns makes a country ripe for a dictatorship. So yeah, if that's not proof I don't know what is... I think Kooties (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —David Koudys

(...) And I would be in support of revoultions to overthrow tyrannies. Look, if you want to sell democracy to the world, which is a want that your country so obviously has, then you have to 'believe' (for lack of a better word) in democracy. These (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —Richard Marchetti

(...) Actually, I have to believe in a Republic -- because that's what we have. Personally, I am not at all interested in what other nations do for govt. I have no interst in selling democracy. Making the world free for democracy is a misguided (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —David Koudys

(...) Not so much in the 'officialdom' of your leaders. (...) Lovely words really. Words like "service" to the country, "defence of the fatherland"... Would almost sound like a draft to me. But I'm not up on all things Argentinian. (...) I have no (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) I caution that the use of this type of yardstick is called the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, or the fallacy of the receding target. Whatever our modern sensibilities may be, the Inquisition was *the essence* of Christianity in its day, so it's (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

The problem with John and Justin's thinking here is that they want to be allowed to show that different kinds of Xtianity may exist and that some of these factions of Xtianity are not what they would really consider "properly" Xtian in terms of John (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —David Koudys

(...) Vietnam (and a whole bunch of other war/police actions) that America got involved in for selfish reasons would be a similar situation--we wish to distance ourselves from the wrongdoings of our ancestors, or even the wrongs we've done (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) That's a good example. There has been a tendency, thanks largely to Dubya's inane "with us or against us" mentality, to equate patriotism with blind faith in the righteous (some might say "God-given") infallibility of the Bush administration, (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —David Koudys

(...) I'm not one to even remotely come close to throwing Dubya a life line, but which president in recent history wanted to develop a consistant foreign policy? Not even Bubba attempted that task. The Saudis are 'always good', for one example. I (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) And Israel is always the oppressed party, no matter how many Palestinian civilians they "accidentally" kill. Again, your point is good. "Consistent foreign policy" is hard to address simply because there are so many variables from nation to (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Justin Pankey

(...) Neo-Nazi's and the KKK are not Christians at all! The term means one that follows Christ and His teachings. There is no evidence in any of Christ's teaching that He would suppport the actions of these groups, in fact their actions are entirely (...) (21 years ago, 19-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

Once again, in the category of "Why Bother?"... (...) You do not get to decide that -- they do! I am pretty sure a Xtian is anyone calling themselves a Xtian, however misguided you may think their beliefs may be. For example, President Shrub thinks (...) (21 years ago, 19-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Justin Pankey

(...) In any religion there are certain core values that one must adhere too to be considered part of the group. If your line of thinking were valid, I could call myself an atheist and still claim to believe in God and you would be powerless to (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Justin Pankey

Sorry to all for the typos in my replies within this forum...(just noticed after a little nap). I've been quite ill lately and will sign off from this debate until I can concentrate good enough to at least proof my own posts correctly :o) Justin (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) Atheism is not a religion, although I know Xtians like to think that it is. However we are looking at dictionary definitions here -- my dictionary says that being a Xtian can be defined as simply as "one who professes a belief in Jesus." All (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) I would suggest that the common (in the US) notion of the "traditional family" hardly ever existed at all except on TV and in the blurry nostalgia of the people. And I agree that we'd all be a lot better off if that insidious fiction were (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) Clarification on what you mean exactly by the term "traditional family" would be appreciated, Dave! JOHN (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) Fair enough. How about this: The idea of a happy, non-dysfunctional, financially secure, single-income, white, Christian family with at least one son and one daughter, and often with a grandparent in residence. If you look at almost any (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) When a conservative uses the term "traditional family", I believe that they are referring to a 1 male, 1 women married household. This model can be traced all the way back to the teaching of Jesus. Number of kids is inconsequential; (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) Let's see: 1. Mary, unemployed, but that's okay 2. Joseph, employed, but later disappears from all record 3. James, child by marriage 4. Jesus, child by a contemporaneous extramarital union who grows up to be executed for sedition Doesn't (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

The family: myth and reality (URL) Families in the real world are often not what the policy makers think. And 'the family' everywhere is under immense stress from rapid economic, social and environmental changes. In this Year of the Family Jodi (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) Ahem-- speaking of Relevant Difference, I think it was a little unfair to choose a rather unique family in history:-) Anyway, I referred to Jesus' teaching: "He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'for this (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) This is in Genesis also. Is Jesus the same God as in the Old Testament? How about the Book of the Conquest? How about a god that redeems the world only at the sacrifice of his own son or self in some psycho lamb-as-sacrifice-suicide pact? (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) Well sure, but that wouldn't have been as funny! 8^) (...) Let's stipulate that by "marriage" I refer to the contract of marriage between two or more willing parties, but I do not recognize any religious component as necessary or central to (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Justin Pankey

(...) This is because it takes "faith" to NOT believe in God because you have to have faith in such fatally flawed teachings as evolution,etc. or regarding whatever other theories you have about what got us here. (...) I don't know what dictionary (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) Justin, your comment betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of atheism. Consider the following statements: A: I believe that God does not exist. B: I do not believe that God exists. Do you see that these two statements are (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —David Koudys

(...) <snip> (...) Are they inherently different? Saying 2 + !2 = 5 or 2 + 2 = !5 Both equations are superfluously different, but inherently they are stating the same thing. Whether you say "I believe that God does not exist" or "I don't believe (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

What the ****?! Belief has nothing to do with anything. Get it through your thick skulls. The existence or non-existence of a possible god is not so far an observed phenomena. End of story. If you want to believe in the bogeyman in the sky, go right (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —David Koudys

(...) Well Hoppy, I see that you're on a tirade, and, for the most part, a perfectly understandable one. However, your little rant above is not called for. I didn't mention at all my convictions, but am pointing out what may be a reasonably (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) Again, as a believer you are trying to frame the issue as circling around the issue of belief or faith -- and it is just not so. I am not saying that God doesn't exist. I am saying that there is no evidence of that possibility. Crying about (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote: Richard has put his finger exactly on the problem, but I was interested in the underlying logic of the questaion and decided to go ahead anyway for clarity's sake. (...) I'm afraid that this notation (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —David Koudys

(...) I also like the point of his tirade--Bible thumping Christians who think they have all the answers and like to force their POV down the throats of others is contemptable. (...) You wrote it below--is computer geek for the word 'not' 2 + not 2 (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> Double D'oh!!!! Grr!!! 'Twas suppose to be 2 + not 2 = 5 and 2 + 2 = not 5 !!!!!! Grr!!! crazy kid doesn't know what the h-e double hockey sicks he's talking about!! Grr!! Going (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) Right, but by that same token, consider this: In statement A, the conditional thing that does or does not exist is God. In statement B, the conditional thing that does or does not exist is belief. (...) I disagree, believe it or not! 8^) I (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: <snip> (...) On that we both agree! :) And the rest nicely stated. Dave K (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

The poblem is not in my or Dave!'s logic, it lies possibly in the language or words we are using to express our ideas. Obviously, it is easier to talk about things in the positive rather than negative because in the negative you have to conjure an (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Justin Pankey

(...) Understood and agreed...Using Atheism was a bad example...most everything else I said has been snipped. Again I refute Richard's statement that merely calling yourself a Christian makes you a Christian and refer you to the 2 definitions for (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) If you can recommend any such books I would be greatly interested to explore them. I would steer you away from such authors as William Lane Craig, William Dembski, or Michael Denton, all of whom commit grievous logical and statistical errors. (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: <snip> (...) Now that was a tremendous ST:TNG ep when Jean Luc was being tortured by the Cardassian--can't remember the quote right now, but when I heard it, it was a "Wow!" moment. And I concur with (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) I think that you and I went down this road (URL) before.> Bear in mind that the thread took place before you and I made peace, so it might come across with more bitterness than is now the case. (...) Perhaps not, but it definitely eliminates (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Justin Pankey

(...) I'll see what I can come up with for you. (...) It is ONE central requirement, yet Random House and I are stating that "adhering to the teachings of Christ" is also an essential requirement to be catagorized as a "Christian." (...) I'll check (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Justin Pankey

(...) Hi Dave, As requested here's a book for you...It's scope is highly scientific. "Darwin's Leap of Faith" by John Ankerberg and John Weldon. I'll try to pick up the book you suggested as well. If you get this book and would like to comment (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) Thanks for the book suggestion--I'll see if I can track it down. As to the rest, I question your priorities when you put work and family before LEGO-related concerns! Dave! (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Thomas Stangl

(...) In person, no. But the bigotry you continuously spout in here shows Pride in yourself and your chosen religion. (...) In person, you are. But some of the things you say in here border on insanity sometimes. (...) In THEORY, maybe not. But if (...) (21 years ago, 19-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) If that is your perception, then I guess it is so, but I have to say that it is very easy to be misunderstood in a forum such as this. (...) Hmmm. Really insane, or just not inline with what you believe? :-) (...) That is what is known as a (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) Let me phrase it this way: Do you ask questions that, if answered, could cause you to reject your faith as invalid? That is, do you ask the kinds of questions that may require you to abandon your current worldview? If the answer is no, then I (...) (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) Perhaps I was too light in my characterization. While I think that brother/sister unions are deeply taboo, I also believe that they are pathological, and that their "wrongness" possibly stems from genetics. (...) I have to believe that God is (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! Four out of five scientists claim.... —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) We've been down that road before. Science specifically places no faith in much of anything - not even results, which is why experiments are duplicated to see if the same results are obtained by a different set of senses. New information can (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! Four out of five scientists claim.... —John Neal

(...) I know this is ploughed ground; I was specifically referring to the creation of the universe. Either God started it, or it simply started itself (neither theory is "scientific") (...) That's 5-0 Vikings to you my friend! Now I must go and (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! Four out of five scientists claim.... —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Science does not pretend to have the answer to the origin of the universe. It has speculation, to be sure, and some ideas on how the creation of the universe progressed. It's one of those questions that we don't see the answer to now, but from (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! Four out of five scientists claim.... —John Neal

(...) What I am saying is that this particular question is unique and cannot, by definition, be answered by Science. (...) Science will never come up with the answer period. Any speculation about the origin of the universe is pure flattery. Even if (...) (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! Four out of five scientists claim.... —Dave Schuler

(...) That's called special pleading, and it's a fallacy. It's a double-standard based in circular reasoning and cannot be used in any logically sound argument. (...) Well, that's as much a statement of faith as anything I've heard you make, and it (...) (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! Four out of five scientists claim.... —John Neal

(...) I have to admit that I am surprised we are even debating this because I thought that there was consensus here. WRT to the origin of the universe, you say that "...we don't have the tools to verify our hypotheses. All in good time." Are those (...) (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! Four out of five scientists claim.... —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, let's disclaim once again that science isn't in the business of proving anything as 100% fact, so I reserve the statement that science will always permit modification to existing theory. Science hasn't yet produced a supernova in the (...) (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! Four out of five scientists claim.... —John Neal

(...) Hmmm, sounds convenient (point 2 from point 1) and complicated:-) (...) Yes, I am conceding this from the beginning. (...) My point is that if you hold that the universe always existed, that is a faith statement as much as any about God having (...) (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! Four out of five scientists claim.... —Dave Schuler

(...) But the key difference is that I am saying "I accept that the universe may always have existed," rather than "I believe that God has always existed." I offer and accept the universe's existence as a possibility, but I don't put faith in that (...) (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! Four out of five scientists claim.... —John Neal

(...) Okay, you are toying with me, but to be honest, you have to start somewhere to logically explain stuff. At the beginning of any one of those theories must be faith, because something from nothing is not scientific. (...) The problem is that (...) (21 years ago, 19-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! Four out of five scientists claim.... —Dave Schuler

I missed this post in all the commotion, so I didn't reply earlier. My apologies to John for the delay. (...) What's unscientific about it, exactly? Thermodymanics allows for "something from nothing" as long as the net effect is zero. Quantum vacuum (...) (21 years ago, 23-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) I know that you have to believe this, but I have to believe that I have sufficient gas in the tank to make it to the next fueling station. Saying that I have to believe something is basically equivalent to saying I really really really want to (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) This one? 01. Unitarian Universalism (100%) 02. Secular Humanism (96%) 03. Liberal Quakers (88%) 04. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (74%) 05. Nontheist (69%) 06. Theravada Buddhism (69%) 07. Neo-Pagan (62%) 08. Bahá'í Faith (59%) (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! And Hoppy thought he was the chief pagan :-) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Haha! That was a great test. I out-neo-paganed the neo-pagan! I see the religion I was initially exposed to (inflicted with?) way down near the bottom. Interesting results. The religion I was initially raised in (inflicted with) is way down (...) (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! And Hoppy thought he was the chief pagan :-) —Ross Crawford

(...) LOL Not I, McDuff... Maybe I'll try Taoism. 1. Unitarian Universalism (100%) 2. Secular Humanism (95%) 3. Liberal Quakers (92%) 4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (86%) 5. Neo-Pagan (79%) 6. Theravada Buddhism (78%) 7. Nontheist (...) (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! And Hoppy thought he was the chief pagan :-) —Thomas Stangl

Here's my results, answering all as accurately as I could, considering many of the flawed answer choices: 1. Secular Humanism (100%) 2. Unitarian Universalism (99%) 3. Liberal Quakers (90%) 4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (86%) 5. (...) (21 years ago, 18-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! And Hoppy thought he was the chief pagan :-) —Thomas Stangl

Oh, and my Spiritual Type score was 37, on a scale of 25 to 100. 30 - 39 Spiritual Dabbler -- Open to spiritual matters but far from impressed Who picks a scale of 25-100? I was really surprised I didn't get Hardcore Skeptic - I guess it's my (...) (21 years ago, 18-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy Crap! Sacred Cow Makes the Best Hamburger! —Bruce Schlickbernd

Where we find out some odd things about ourselves: Smorgasboard Approach to Religion Award (highest overall percentage of compatiblity) -->Bruce<-- 60% Bah Humbug Award (lowest overall percentage) -- Hop-Frog 45% Most Likely to Sacrifice a Virgin to (...) (21 years ago, 17-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy Crap! Sacred Cow Makes the Best Hamburger! —Bruce Schlickbernd

I suppose one could also analyze this from the standpoint of death... Most Likely to Get Roaring Drunk in Valhalla -->Bruce<-- Most Likely to Go to Heaven JOHN Most Likely to Be Reincarnated - Mike Most Likely to Achieve Nirvana -->Bruce<-- (which (...) (21 years ago, 17-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) That test is certainly interesting: 1. Bahá'í Faith (100%) 2. Islam (96%) 3. Orthodox Judaism (96%) 4. Sikhism (94%) 5. Jainism (84%) 6. Reform Judaism (76%) 7. Hinduism (69%) 8. Orthodox Quaker (57%) 9. Mahayana Buddhism (57%) 10. Liberal (...) (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) Here are my results: 1. Secular Humanism (100%) 2. Unitarian Universalism (96%) 3. Liberal Quakers (83%) 4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (83%) 5. Nontheist (76%) 6. Theravada Buddhism (67%) 7. Neo-Pagan (64%) 8. Christian Science (...) (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) Wow, I out Scientologied you with 39%. How weird is that. -Mike Petrucelli (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) Oh, great. Now I have to watch it twice. Thanks, guys. Dave! (21 years ago, 17-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) My score, as if it is any surprise. No wonder I have trouble seeing eye to eye with y'all Neo-Pagans;-) 1. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (100%) 2. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (96%) 3. Orthodox Quaker (93%) 4. (...) (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) Cool! Between "Secular Humanism" and "Nontheist," we have you 50% of the way to reason! 8^) Dave! (21 years ago, 17-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) And what are those cultural values based on? The reality of genetic inbreeding, so it kinda loops back on itself. Saying cultural values is saying that it is genetic issues, which is not in the "aside from" column. I think you need to be more (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) Brother/sister unions are taboo in most cultures AFAIK. That could point to a genetic component that discourages such unions thereby avoiding inbreeding. Or, all of the brothers and sisters who tried to procreate produced (...) (21 years ago, 24-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) I'm no expert by any stretch but I think this is false on both counts. It's my understanding that if enough inbreeding occurs you actually get the same result as carefully avoiding inbreeding. I think there was evidence of this from (...) (21 years ago, 24-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) Okay, but you'd agree that it is taboo in our culture? If so, to what would you attest that value? I'll have to do a little research, but I think the taboo extends beyond any Judeo-Christian influence. (...) I don't follow you. Are you saying (...) (21 years ago, 24-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) There's plenty of examples of inbreeding in the Bible. Does the Bible also specifically forbid incest? It's not something of great importance to me either way so I can see my forgetting these details... (...) It is my understanding that (...) (21 years ago, 24-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —David Koudys

(...) I like the bit in the Bible where the men have harems--why can't I have my many women! K, I don't have a woman right now, yet enough to constitute a harem... so this point's rather irrelevant. <snip> (...) (21 years ago, 24-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) Well, if you're like most male human beings -- you will! One at a time. It's called "serial monogamy." And if you don't get married or have children I think I'd have to say that you would be increasing your chances of increasing the numbers (...) (21 years ago, 24-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) Yes, incest is prohibited in Leviticus. So are a lot of things BTW, like eating lobster;-) I think the issue predates the Bible. And I did a little research-- it appears that incest is taboo in virtually every culture (except in some (...) (21 years ago, 24-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) Out of curiosity, do you believe the story of Noah's Ark? Dave! (21 years ago, 24-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) As a matter of historical record, no. It is a story, as are the creation stories in Genesis. But I do believe that a Supreme Being created the universe somehow. I believe that the Bible isn't interested in explaining the hows of anything, but (...) (21 years ago, 24-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) Okay, then why, according to the bible, did God create man and, for that matter, the universe? Dave! (21 years ago, 24-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) Fellowship. God wants to be in relationship with us. JOHN (21 years ago, 24-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) Then you're asserting that God is finite and imperfect? Dave! (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) I don't think that follows from what I said. Any attempts (even Biblical) to describe the infinite will fall woefully short, and attempts to describe God will inevitabley start sounding like anthropomorphizing. Using the third person musculine (...) (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, the chain works like this: To "want" something (such as fellowship), is to imply a lack of that thing (or a desire to prevent the negation/removal of that thing). A being who lacks something is incomplete, and incompleteness indicates (...) (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) Did you think the usual proof was to trite? The Problem of Evil A good God would destroy evil. An all powerful God could destroy evil. Evil exists and is not destroyed. ~~~...~~~ Therefore, there cannot possibly be such a good and all powerful (...) (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) I like that proof just fine, but when I've presented it here before (in prior discussions) it's usually been dismissed off-handedly in terms of "His mysterious purpose" or the like. For variety's sake, I thought that I'd try this perfect = (...) (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) As a mental exercise, if you were an omnipotent being and had the ability to improve/redesign/remodel our current universe, how would you do it? (besides making LEGO grow on trees;-) JOHN (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) Yeah, that's straight from the mouth of Elihu in the Book of Job. Elihu says God "was angry at Job because he justified himself rather than God" (Job 32.2): "God is greater than man. Why do you contend against him?" (Job 33.12-13). God even (...) (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) Ultimately evil will be destroyed. Is this a temporal issue? God allows evil only because God respects our free will. People choose evil. (...) Yes. (...) Again, because God respects free will. (...) No. JOHN (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) Funny: I want you to express your free will. If you do good, I will love you and reward you in this life and with the attainment of heaven in the afterlife. If you do evil, I will smite you and burn you down in this life and punish you with (...) (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) I'm not so sure. I think that there are plenty of people who'd rather embrace evil than good, and they do every day. I look at it this way: God says, "Here is the gift of life-- live it however you choose. But life is a mystery, and sometimes (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) God intentionally limits Himself by giving us free will (as far as we know). God desires us to have abundant life-- I don't see where this indicates that God is incomplete or imperfect. Perhaps you could say that God is limited, but it is by (...) (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) I'm afraid that the doctrine of free will is incompatible with the notion of original sin; it is logically inconsistent to believe in both. (...) God is limited in other ways, too. God, as an omnibenevolent being, can never take first-hand (...) (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) It is illogical for an infinite being to even give free will-- it would seem that all is predestined anyway. (...) Never say never, Dave! Isn't pleasure simply a release of endorphines in our little electro-stimulated brains? Couldn't it all (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) Gee, how did I know that all of this was coming? It's not that God is logically impossible -- it's that YOUR CONCEPTION of God is logically impossible. Can you see the difference? Your conception of God, however much you try to evade your (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) So the other day I take the day off work to help my dad pour concrete. Talking to the 'cement truck guy' who has been in the business for 40 years (and a week away from (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) No, he can't. Unless, that is, you accept that it is a good act to take pleasure in killing an innocent human being. And if indeed you do accept that, then you undermine all your previous arguments about the evils of fanatical Islam. (...) But (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) Yeah, that's why I used the word "delusion." Delusion -- The act or process of deluding; The state of being deluded; A false belief or opinion; Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) Yeah, I love that story! I believe that it describes the (URL) model of the universe. (URL) Here's> related commentary from the (URL) Skeptic's Dictionary> website: What are we to make of the fact that our personal experience contradicts the (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) An excellent summation, Dave! It's pretty much where I stand as well. I'll live my life as virtuously as I know how, but I won't rub blue mud in my belly button and then delude myself that doing so somehow makes me better than those that won't (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —David Koudys

(...) This is something that got me away from "organized" religion--the most virtuous person I have ever met (imho) is my uncle George--he's up at 5 a.m. flooding the skating rink in the local park for the kids, with no thought of restitution, he's (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) Are you saying that the "Good Book" is a creation of man, and therefore flawed? Or that men are unable to understand the meaning of a divine text? I think ultimately I am asking you the value of a flawed or unknowable text. If your (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —David Koudys

(...) As clear as poosible givine the context Some folks say that the 'good book' is God's holy word, and as such, is impervious to mistake. Sure. Whatever. That's why every minister that has ever preached and every discourse of specific passages (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) This suggests a question that may have been asked herepreviously, but I'd like to follow up on it once again: Accepting that you do believe that God exists, {why} do you believe that God exists? I've asked people this in non-LUGNET life, and (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —David Koudys

(...) Well, you won't like my answer then. Being a pretty big fan of science, but only managing to fluff in trying to get a BA, I consider myself a 'pseudo-sciece guy'. Which means I get the general concepts, adn can see how things work and all, but (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) I'm with Kooties in that you are not likely to like my answer either. And I am likely to be further marginalized by "uber-pagan" types like Bruce. Keeping in mind that I reject most organized religions out of hand as obviously politically (...) (21 years ago, 29-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Marginalized by me? I thought it all great - not quite what I expected from The Angry Young Man. Dave may not like it, but I do. It all fits into a neo-pagan Gaiea world view. I suppose it fits into alot of religions - except for the bit about (...) (21 years ago, 29-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! —Ross Crawford

(...) As can play^H^H^H^Hbuilding with LEGO bricks. But as a form of meditation I prefer music (playing, listening, laughing at.....) ROSCO (21 years ago, 29-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Where's my favorite appeal to logic: if you don't believe in God you will burn in hell for all eternity! -->Bruce<-- (21 years ago, 29-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Give this man a pat on the back (was Re: Holy crap!) —Adrian Egli

(...) Like the subject line says: "Give this man a pat on the back." Adr. (21 years ago, 29-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) Pardon? "Wholly arbitrary" would be a determination of "good" and "evil" based on nothing more than whim or random chance. As artifacts of our evolution, "good" and "evil" are cultural characterizations of certain behaviors and situations, (...) (21 years ago, 24-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) I meant it in the sense that it isn't based on an absolute, so in theory it could be based on anything at any given time. (...) Our evolving understanding of God came as He revealed Himself to us, culminating in the life and teaching of Jesus (...) (21 years ago, 24-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) I think that any progression of society necessitates us being on, average, good, or there will be no healthy progression. I have to rely on my fellow person to do the work that I cannot do in (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) Read, learn... again. (URL) -Mike Petrucelli (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: The partisian trap in California —Dave Schuler

(...) If Democrats has sufficient sway in Congress, there would certainly be an independent counsel investigating the run-up to the war (a la Ken Starr/Whitewater), but Republican lock-steppers have resisted any efforts in this regard. Likewise, the (...) (21 years ago, 6-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: The partisian trap in California —John Neal

(...) As for the threat of terror (imminent or otherwise), this is what I genuinely believe: I have no doubt that if SH had biological, chemical or nuclear WMDs at his disposal, he eventually would have made them available to terrorists such as OBL (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: The partisian trap in California —Richard Marchetti

(...) This kind of nonsense is precisely why its not worth discussing anything with you. I can't even call it a debate if your replies are going to be this moronic. You don't have any logic behind your position, you just keep asking the same (...) (21 years ago, 6-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: The partisian trap in California —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) According to one guy who witnessed one of Arnold's excesses, Arnold said that's how he did it in Austria, so Hollywood has nothing to do with it (in fact, most of these incidents date to his pre-Hollywood period - maybe he learned them at (...) (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: The partisian trap in California —John Neal

(...) So Liberals shouldn't criticize his behavior lest they politically incorrectly "judge" the morays of another culture;-) As for the Young Republican meetings-- I doubt he started attending them before his first million earned;-) (...) The (...) (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: The partisian trap in California —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) A cute answer (heck, you got me to laugh with you!), but it doesn't deal with the substance of the claims. I think we are up to 15 accusers, a number that will no doubt grow. (...) Of course the timing is suspect. Then again, sometimes it (...) (21 years ago, 6-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: The partisian trap in California —John Neal

(...) Let it, and let him address each one. I have a feeling that after tomorrow, the issue will become mute (sic), because most of the allegations are beyond the statute of limitations (so at best they would get an apologize which he has already (...) (21 years ago, 6-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: The partisian trap in California —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Arnold claims in one breath that he does not deny all the stories about grabbing and immediately continues that "this is not (him)." Well, if he admits he did it, then it is him. What is this fairy tale that it isn't. He wants to imply that (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: The partisian trap in California —Dave Schuler

(...) I would add to that the observation that his apology was also an oddly flaccid non-denial denial. He didn't say "I apologize for grabbing these 15+ women, which was wrong of me to do." Instead, he said, "I apologize if I offended anyone," (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: The partisian trap in California —Harvey Henkelman

(...) Jesse Ventura was also a former NAVY SEAL, who has served his country to his utmost. Show the guy some respect before you criticize him, as he is quite possibly the most credible politician out there. -HRH (21 years ago, 29-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The partisian trap in California —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) The Voters (not me) ran Jesse out on a rail. *They* didn't respect his performance *as a politcian* (i.e. he had no crediblity based on actual performance). Take it up with them. -->Bruce<-- (21 years ago, 29-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)