Debate : 23726


Off-Topic / Debate / 23726

George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Scott Arthur

I thought (URL) this> was a great article. Two key sections of text: “Two nights ago, this most dangerous man, George Bush, talked about "freedom in Iraq". Not "democracy" in Iraq. No, "democracy" was no longer mentioned. "Democracy" was simply left (...) (20 years ago, 17-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Well, heck, those wacky Iraqis might vote for Islamic extremists - an eventuality that the Guy Not Elected by "Yankees" did not even consider. Gotta save them from themselves, don't you know. Let's face it, why should Bush support the will of (...) (20 years ago, 19-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —John Neal

(...) I think it is a bit offensive and even racist to believe that any human being wouldn't want to be free if truly given the chance. (...) What gives? Isn't that the very mantra of regulating Liberals? (...) He supports the will of the people who (...) (20 years ago, 19-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Dave Schuler

(...) Maybe, or maybe not. In terms of religion and faith, you yourself are far less free than I am--wouldn't you want to be free in the first place? And in any case, why must the American Vision of Freedom be the universal solution for everyone? (...) (20 years ago, 19-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —John Neal

(...) But it is my choice to limit myself, and frankly, to advocate complete freedom without responsibility is to be an Anarchist, not a freedom-lover. (...) I'm not sure what you mean here. Freedom is freedom. What is Bush's vision that differs (...) (20 years ago, 19-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Dave Schuler

(...) Perhaps this is a matter of semantics. Under what I understand of your faith, you are "free" to to worship God or to condemn yourself to eternal damnation, but that's like saying "you're free to eat this ice cream cone or to hit yourself on (...) (20 years ago, 19-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —John Neal

(...) The choice is to accept God or not. I'm sure that dwelling with God is as wonderful as dwelling without God is miserable. (...) Freedom of religion doesn't mean "freedom from religion". But let me ask you: do we have an obligation to assist (...) (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Dave Schuler

(...) I figure that you and I both know that we're getting off the initial point of the debate, so our audience may wish to tune out at this point! On what basis are you sure of that? Faith? I'm afraid that's simply insufficient for me (and in any (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —John Neal

(...) Yes. Do you claim to only believe in things that are provable? In the final analysis, what would you say about a devout scientist who believed in God? Is he/she compromised as a scientific thinker? (...) Yes, but I'm curious. There are so many (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, I guess I'd say that I believe only in those things for which there is empirical evidence or which can, in principle, be proven. As far as a devout scientist is concerned, I say go right ahead! I would, however, offer that IMO the devout (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

A footnote (was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism) —Dave Schuler

(...) I've known about this since the day it happened, but (URL) here's> a good summation of Bush's pious, vulgarity-free public life. While we're at it, (URL) here's> some video of our born-again, teetotaling Prez back in August of 1992. (...) (20 years ago, 30-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Blank checks drawn upon the US —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Why? Who placed this obligation on us and what was gained in exchange? (...) Why? (...) Why? What if they are convinced that blue mud is the cure for AIDS (c.f. South Africa right about now) when we know for sure it isn't? (...) Why? Why (...) (20 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Blank checks drawn upon the US —Scott Arthur

(...) How else can you convince them that they are wrong? Education (for all) is the key! Scott A (20 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Reasonable offerings of aid (was Re: Blank checks drawn upon the US) —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, I reject that framing of the issue--there's no need to assume that there's a tit-for-tat arrangement. Why must there be? My assumption (with which you are free to disagree, of course) is that the entire system is improved if the good of (...) (20 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Larry Pieniazek

(...) You are? Well, dwelling without him is pretty peachy, if you ask me. So then, sorry to hear you're having such a rough time with him. (logically if I'm not miserable then you're not wonderful) (20 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —John Neal

(...) I'm glad that you have had a blessed life. Chances are that one day things won't always look so peachy, answers won't come so easily, and fates won't be accepted so readily. (...) It is my understanding that God doesn't value "logic" much-- (...) (20 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Dave Schuler

(...) But do you see how that's an unsatisfactory answer? If Larry's life turns non-peachy, then you would claim that your point is proven. But if Larry's life does not turn non-peachy, then you would claim that your point is not disproven. Your (...) (20 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) "If God wanted man to think, He would have given him a brain." -B.Schlickbernd -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —David Koudys

(...) So here I am, in the mood for some sort of new .siggy quotation, and lo and behold, one just pops into my lap! (top) Dave K "If God wanted man to think, He would have given him a brain." -BS (20 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) So, you don't agree with it? Oh, wait...geez, use my middle initial (G). I never use just the first and last.... ;-) -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —David Koudys

(...) It works on sooo many levels. But fine, I'll use the G... G? George? Gerry? Godfreid? Geoffrey? Oh wait, that's mine... Dave G. K "If God wanted man to think, He would have given him a brain." -BGS (20 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) It already did, but I suppose that adds another. (...) Apparently there is no Saint Bruce (unless you're Scottish and want to count Robert the Bruce, who was hardly a saint but that's who I'm named after - though the Scot in the family is (...) (20 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —John Neal

(...) Got any about women? ;-) JOHN (20 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Well, it is based on the idiot that said, "If God wanted man to fly, He would have given him wings," so I just followed that format instead of PCing it (ummm, do I have to admit that I came up with this saying before the term "PC" existed, (...) (20 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —John Neal

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote: (snip) (...) That's how I was taking it (literally)-- it reminded me of this one: "What do you call a women without an A**hole?" "Single" Ahh, the fine art of menbashing.... FUTOT.F JOHN (20 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —John Neal

(...) It's unsatisfactory to a logical mind. Logic is a tool, but not the end all of inquiry. It has its limitations. Heck, I can use logic to prove that movement is impossible (ask). Applying logic to God is like trying to measure the volume of an (...) (20 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Dave Schuler

(...) You can, but your logic would be faulty. Present your argument for review, if you'd like. (...) This is that wordplay I cautioned against! (...) Which God? The Christian God? You'll likely disagree, but I find God to be logically impossible on (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —David Koudys

(...) Infinity may exist. Finite minds can grasp theories and ideas regarding infinite, but cannot encompass what infinite really is due to the very nature of finite minds If finite minds cannot encompass infinite, infinite cannot exist? That's the (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Dave Schuler

(...) Infinity *does* exist, and it's in lots of places all around us. Find the terminus (in two dimensions) of the surface of a sphere, for one example. The duplicity of Dubya, for another (I hope that this one is merely a jest, though I'm not yet (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —David Koudys

(...) :) (...) And I agree with many of your assessments, which is why I'm having 'issue' with the 'Church Proper' right now. It was clearly illuminated when I read that cute story about the answer to the question "Is Hell exothermic or endotheric". (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Dave Schuler

(...) True, but your formulation of this example is incorrect. The ink line is not made of an infinite number of infinitely small "points" of ink; rather, the line is made of a finite (but quite large) number of very small (but quite finite) (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —David Koudys

(...) Yes, and I can sit in my swivel chair and spin from now until "the end of time", never stopping the spin (excluding such contingencies as death and parts on chair wearing out) but, again, that only works 'on paper'. IN real world applications, (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Dave Schuler

(...) I think I'm guilty of an imprecision here. I meant that the path of the laser is effectively infinite, not that it would traverse an endlessly new part of the sphere's surface. Also, as long as we're talking about two dimensions instead of (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —David Koudys

(...) I'd rephrase again--the path is theoretically infinite, for if you set up this exact scenario using real life lasers, ball-bearings nad spinning tools, within a set amount of time something will break down--or the path of the laser, over time, (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Dave Schuler

(...) I think you're blurring the distinction between "impractical in practice" and "impossible in reality." Whether or not we can devise an mechanism that will exist for eternity is irrelevant. The fact that we can create an unbounded (...) (20 years ago, 26-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —David Koudys

(...) I concur--a concept of infinity existing on a two dimensional surface of a sphere is a valid one. But the operative word here is *concept*. In reality, in the physical universe, the surface isn't infinite for it is subject to the finite issues (...) (20 years ago, 26-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Dave Schuler

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote: Please read this whole post (or at least the bottom part) before replying. I may be onto something... (...) Well, let's identify another distinction that seems to be causing us some trouble. You're (...) (20 years ago, 26-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Dave Schuler

(...) Okay, I've thought about it more. And I've decided that my example is 100% faulty. Even if such a theoretical perfect sphere could be said to exist in the real universe, there'd be no way for us to verify it, because we'd have no way to verify (...) (16 years ago, 6-Nov-08, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —John Neal

(...) It takes you FIVE YEARS to admit you're wrong, Dave!? Or have you just been thinking about the example for that long? I don't believe that you had even procreated before this discussion. ROFL JOHN (16 years ago, 7-Nov-08, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, it's not as though I was thinking about it every day, but it was sort of bubbling on the back burner, along with a hundred other random things. Jon Palmer's post in ot.pun was another of them, but I already commented on that one a while (...) (16 years ago, 8-Nov-08, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —John Neal

(...) I'm not sure what to make of this; I'll get back to you in a few years. JOHN (16 years ago, 10-Nov-08, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Dave Schuler

(...) I'm sure you'll have at least two or three ways of getting in touch with me at that time... Dave! (16 years ago, 11-Nov-08, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —David Eaton

(...) Oooo, there's still hope for Myers-Briggs! DaveE (16 years ago, 10-Nov-08, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Dave Schuler

(...) See, this is why people should never admit when they've made a mistake. And I will continue to ridicule the Myers-Briggs Test Instrument while there is breath in my lungs and blood in my veins, thank you very much. Dave! (16 years ago, 11-Nov-08, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —John Neal

(...) So that's what Christian mathematicians argue about! ;-) JOHN (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Christian historians, too: How many saxons on the head of a pin? -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —John Neal

(...) It is a variant of the one Dave K mentioned earlier. Before moving any distance X, the distance 1/2X must be covered. Before moving distance 1/2X, 1/4X distance must be moved, etc. Since there will always be a distance smaller than the one to (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Dave Schuler

(...) Like I said, Zeno's Paradox. But 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32... equals 1. Additionally, your formulation demands that space be infinitely divisible, which it is not. (...) "Apt" is yet to be determined, but I admit that it's clever! (...) (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —J. Spencer Rezkalla

(...) I dunno, baseballs seem to have no problem moving in differential calculus using dv's and dt's... but of course that is continuum mechanics. Some Lugnet physics guru is going to have to speak up about quantum mechanics with the Planck scales (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Scott Arthur

(...) I'd prefer to hope that things remain "peachy" for Larry. But I suppose what you are saying is that peachy-ness (like happiness) is a relative term, and that Larry does not know how "peachy" he is? (...) (That's if Jesus was the Suffering (...) (20 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —John Neal

(...) Or that he is existentially at peace with living an emphemoral life. Most people want to believe that there is something more to life than this existence. (...) Well, whether Jesus was or wasn't the Suffering Servant isn't the point; the point (...) (20 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Scott Arthur

(...) ...but my Queen claims to be my servant... just as Bush should be your's! Does that make Bush a god? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Larry Pieniazek

(...) OK, I buy that. Heck, I've always said your god wasn't very logical anyway. But your god didn't make the assertion above about relationships between happiness and god proximity, though... *you* did. (unless you assert that you were speaking in (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Scott Arthur

(...) Ever thought about why interest rates are so low? Scott A (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

interest rates & "Economic Health" —Scott Arthur

(...) I neglected to add (URL) this link>. Scott A (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: interest rates & "Economic Health" —John Neal

(...) That is old news with outdated figures. And BTW, that reminds me. Seen our rate of inflation lately? I am a small business owner, and for me, this is the best economy I have experienced since I started paying taxes some 30 years ago. It has (...) (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: interest rates & "Economic Health" —Scott Arthur

(...) OK. Tell me what has changed over the last month! (...) What does low inflation & low interest rates signify? Clue: Take a look at the Japanese economy. (...) If real interest rates are the lowest for 30 years, what is the incentive for me to (...) (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: interest rates & "Economic Health" —John Neal

(...) (URL) (...) It signifies that prices are low so stuff is cheap, and getting money is cheap as well. (...) Borrow money and start a business or buy property! (...) How could they do that if we are taking their oil? (...) No. As it is now it is (...) (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: interest rates & "Economic Health" —Scott Arthur

(...) Hardly a rosy picture! "Fewer jobs at home. No pension protection. No health care plan. Gambling the future of Social Security and Medicare" "The Labor Department said the nation's unemployment rate had edged up from 5.6 to 5.7 percent in (...) (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: interest rates & "Economic Health" —John Neal

(...) Please indicate for me a time when the picture was rosy so that I may compare. (snip) (...) Don't be so intelligent. I am a consumer. Prices are low. I don't need to know about theoretical economic BS that nobody is sure about anyway. (...) (...) (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: interest rates & "Economic Health" —Scott Arthur

(...) That is easy, the USA has a boom-bust economy. How about before Bush came to power? (...) Spoken like a true “small businessman”. (...) For those who still have jobs and can afford a home perhaps... As an aside, is the interest on your "home (...) (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: interest rates & "Economic Health" —Pedro Silva

(...) Why so? The US administrations gets to decide if Iraq sells or not its oil. If they decide Iraqi oil stays out of the market, and the price goes up, who benefits? A hint: do the people who decide have shares in oil producing companies? (...) (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Freedom is freedom. —Scott Arthur

(...) John, Given your blind support for Bush, would you say (URL) this> is freedom? Given your blind support for Israel, would you say (URL) this> is freedom? (I would have thought that a nuclear deterrent was useless if one’s enemies did not know (...) (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Freedom is freedom. —John Neal

(...) First, I do not blindly support Bush. I am a 1 issue man, and Kerry can have my vote at any time if he ever supports (URL) The Fair Tax> (...) I would say that neither of us knows the complete circumstances in these cases and so commenting on (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Freedom is freedom. —Scott Arthur

(...) ...and will we ever know the "complete circumstances"? I doubt it; these guys will get away with murder… as will the minority of the troops in Iraq who have abused their position (as a result of poor training). (...) Your loyalty is misplaced. (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Freedom is freedom. —Scott Arthur

(...) (URL) That can't be easy>: "The army said it did not deliberately target protesters, but a helicopter and tanks had fired warning shots to stop crowds entering a battle zone. " Scott A (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Freedom is freedom. —Richard Parsons

(...) Tank shells used as warning shots on unarmoured human beings (despite the availability of perfectly serviceable heavy machine guns). I guess one must admire the Israeli Army's enthusiasm... Richard Still baldly going... (20 years ago, 20-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Scott Arthur

(...) The dead in Iraq won't be given that chance... Do you seriously think Bush will giver power to anyone who upsets his little apple cart? Don’t be a fool, Bush wants Bases & Oil; not freedom for Iraq! (...) (URL) Many do:> Consider the explosion (...) (20 years ago, 19-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Ummmmm, are these comments directed at me or as a general statement? To answer it as a general statement, it is a religious (or cultutal) thing, not a racist thing. Generally speaking, religious fanatics don't want to be free, or at least (...) (20 years ago, 19-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —John Neal

(...) It wasn't personal. (...) Ah, but then in the interests of diversity and multiculturalism, do we have a responsibility to allow them to be as they are (killing, oppressing, etc), or should we enlighten them (eg liberate and teach democracy and (...) (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) And we now loop back to: Well, heck, those wacky Iraqis might vote for Islamic extremists... (...) I must disagree - conservatives want to control others lives and make sure that they conform to their own personal life (i.e. they want their (...) (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —John Neal

(...) Hmmm, sounds like a case of tyranny of the majority, then? BTW, I like that phrase "wacky Iraqi":-) (...) Well... speaking for myself (a conservative), I must disagree. Look, I don't care about your personal life. Keep it personal, don't break (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Richard Parsons

(...) Must be tiring to spend so much time being offended. Nevertheless, unthinkable as it may be, there are those that value among their freedom oriented aspirations to be 'free of American influence'. So highly in fact, that they would be prepared (...) (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —John Neal

(...) I didn't say I took personal offense to it. (...) What an odd thing to say. What is "free of American influence"? Nothing. Are you claiming that there are those in this world that want to eschew all the influence of the US? Think what that (...) (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) There it is--the inherent arrogance in the American system. "We got it right!" Yeah, low standards of education, addiction and seemingly perpetual addiction to fossil fuels and (...) (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) You gotta admit that you are contributing factor: that big chip and inferiority complex you have only fossil-fuels the fire. :-) (...) Turn off your heater and say that again... :-) (...) And I suppose that perpetually screaming, "You got it (...) (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —David Koudys

(...) I will definitely agree that Canada is as dependant on ff as most. However, we are working on lessening the environmental impact, vis a vis Kyoto and other such incentives. We don't have it 'right' yet, nor will we ever possibly attain (...) (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Just enough to be holier than thou, I take it? :-) (...) So....you think I'm wrong? ;-) (...) "Oh, we have both kinds of chips on our shoulders here in Canada: arrogance and self-righteousness." Someone missed the joke.... :-) The greater (...) (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —David Koudys

(...) I would never presume such :) Here's an analogy--there are those who notice that the emperor has no clothes and think to themselves, "Well, that emperor is pretty dense to be walking around without any clothes--look at how much better I am (...) (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) The problem is not the analogy, but your misconception that you are the second guy in that example. (...) No, I'm just teasing you...well, and illustrating your constant fault-finding. . (...) And I really didn't mean that to apply to all (...) (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —David Koudys

Boy I hate when that happens--get a perfectly good tirade going and something happens with IE! Grr!!! Anywho, this time without the frothing (well, probably not...) (...) I am the second guy. Because you chose to misinterpret my intentions, doesn't (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I am not questioning your intentions at all - I am trying to bring to your attention the consistently strident, holier-than-thou attitude that undermines the often quite valid points you have to make. Moving back up here after reading through (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —David Koudys

(...) I didn't think I was, but if your interpretations of my writing style is 'holier than thou', I shall endeavour to rephrase. As it stands, my interpretations of your debating technique in this thread are--you're firmly ensconsed in what you (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

I'll just let Hillary speak for me-- was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —David Koudys

From (URL) I think that in the case of the [Bush] administration, they really believed it. They really thought they were right, but they didn't let enough sunlight into their thinking process to really have the kind of debate that needs to take (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Okay - now, I've deleted all that preceeded this paragraph above because it indulges in everything you just disavowed. There, a clean slate. If you want to go back into the particulars, I'll be only too happy to shoot you down yet again. :-O (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —John Neal

(...) It isn't the height of arrogance to claim that anymore than it is the height of arrogance to claim we don't have it right. That is -->Bruce<--'s point. That is also the problem with moral relativism, but I digress. Getting back to "we've got (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I wasn't really addressing your claim of whether we have it right or not. We do have some things right (democracy, freedom of the press, separation of church and state, freedom to move, freedom to leave) most of the time, and there are some (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —John Neal

(...) The examples of the things we have right are theories-- the examples of things we don't are specifics in trying to apply those theories. Of course we aren't perfect, but we have the perfect blueprint of government-- namely Freedom and (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) No, I am not advocating a tyrany of the majority, I'm saying that is the practical outcome. It recognizing what the difference between what you might want, and what you get. -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —John Neal

(...) It's not arrogance-- it's pride. I am proud that my country embraces Freedom and Democracy. We didn't invent those ideas-- we just embrace them. (...) Specious. (...) Yeah, and there is much sick and wrong with our culture. There is nothing (...) (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Scott Arthur

(...) That ditty sounds good, but it does not correlate well with the reality of Washington’s foreign policy “interventions” over the past 50 years. All too often democracy has been quashed and oppression supported. Scott A (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Dave Schuler

(...) It would probably be helpful if the United States itself embraced those ideals, rather than simply claiming to embrace them. Dave! (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —John Neal

(...) To quote a twist of a famous quotation: "The devil is in the details". We try, and that is all we can do. The world should at least have the opportunity to try. JOHN (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism —Richard Parsons

(...) <chuckle> That's cute. Its offensive but you're not personally offended? What are you, publicly offended? Its offensive to others, but more enlightened folks such as yourself are not offended? <chuckle some more> Really. (...) There are some (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

"regulating Liberals" —Scott Arthur

(...) ...and this comes from the same person who (URL) said>: "to advocate complete freedom without responsibility is to be an Anarchist, not a freedom-lover" Scott A (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: "regulating Liberals" —John Neal

(...) Not sure what you are saying here. When I said "responsibility", I meant personal responsibility. As I have stated elsewhere, Freedom without morality is doomed. I don't need an amoral government to be my conscience. JOHN (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: "regulating Liberals" —Scott Arthur

(...) What if your countrymen shirk that "responsibility"? (...) But you welcome one which reflects your own narrow moral views? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)