Debate : 24203


Off-Topic / Debate / 24203

Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

Here's a hypothetical: Let's suppose a major event occurs between now and November 2, something on the order of 9/11. Now let's suppose that Dubya's administration either postpones or cancels the Presidential election in the wake of the disaster, (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Don Heyse

(...) Why bother asking silly hypothetical questions? All the answers are already available on video. (URL) you know kids are to watching the the latest Hollywood has to offer for science class? What do you think of that? Don (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) hoping to learn what people in this forum think, rather than what the distilled wisdom of the Internet has to offer. (...) Are you talking about (URL) The Day After Tomorrow,> universally deplored by everyone with an iota of scientific (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Don Heyse

(...) Sorry, I just found it interesting that google returned this link: (URL) the second page of my search for terrorist movie references. Apparently that's where you get all your material. It's got your question, your cigar mag reference, (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, what does it say to you, exactly? Franks' interview in Cigar Afficianado is now a matter of public record, so it's fair game for my question. I've never seen (URL) The Siege>, so I can't comment on the relevance of that piece of fiction (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) Whoa, a blast from the past. I loved Hemo! (...) What's your point-- that blood isn't formed by a bunch of tiny people named Nemo? Next you'll probably assert that prostates can't write articles! JOHN (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Koudys

(...) <snip> (...) I was thinking that season 2 thru 4 of Bab 5, specifically regarding President Clarke's assention to power and the corruption thereof, with all the 'homeguard', the 'poli-speak', and the 'if you're not with us, you're against us' (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) I hate to have to tell you this, but JMS was actually a few decades behind his time! Orwell pegged all of that stuff way back in 1948! I'm not a B5 fan, so I can't comment on the particulars of that series, but it sounds like JMS was offering (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) For the sake of literary snobbery, I did a little looking over the weekend, and here are two examples I came up with: (URL) From Book One, chapter 4:> Winston thought for a moment, then pulled the speakwrite towards him and began dictating in (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) What is the link you see (or want to see) between time-in-culture and publicity? Maybe the fact that religion keeps reinventing itself is specifically why it stays newsworthy while human sexuality is mostly static. (And note that when we do (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) This is a really good question, and I hadn't thought about it in those terms. I guess I would have to note, as you suggest, that attempts to reinvent sexuality (or the expression thereof) are met with vigorous resistence, often by the very (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: (snipping) (...) It is a misnomer to characterize the Judeo-Christian tradition as antisexual. We are all for sex, but within the context of marriage. Sex outside of marriage erodes at the institution (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I don't think so. (...) You're "all for" sex with only one partner, of only one certain sex, in only certain ways, under only certain circumstances. Right? (...) To start, I'm assuming that you agree with American Heritage in that the nuclear (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) Then we disagree. (...) Yes, but neither are you "all for" sex either, unless you are willing to advocate beastiality, incest, etc. You draw your lines, I draw mine. There is no difference except in degree. (...) Of course. Do you have another (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Thomas Stangl

(...) Really? Do tell... (...) I don't exactly know what reality you live in anymore, John (if I ever did), but I've got news for you - the Nuclear Family is a 20th C construct, and it is falling by the wayside. It is anything BUT the norm anymore. (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) Take a look around. I think you are denying the obvious. What would you assert the foundation of our society is? (...) (snip) (...) I didn't say it was the norm, just the foundation. (...) I doubt it. Cultures with strong, nuclear families (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Thomas Stangl

(...) Judging by stats today? The foundation is just as likely to be Divorce as it is to be Marriage. 50% goes both ways, bub. (...) The foundation of what? {Your} idea of what the US should be? Ignoring the fact that it is a 20C construct? (...) (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) That really depends on the animal - the smarter they are the more they can move away from "instinct". My bird can put words, individuals, and activities together without me attempting to teach him in the slightest. The dog can do the same, if (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) The Talking Dog A guy walks into a bar with a dog under his arm, puts the dog on the bar and announces that the dog can talk and that he has $100 he's willing to bet anyone who says he can't. The bartender quickly takes the bet and the owner (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Yup, that's always been a good one. :-) But as if on cue to back me up: (URL) "Research Finds Dogs Understand Language" I didn't need research to have figured this out. My dog brings the right toy when I ask for it (tug-of-war, squeeky, ball), (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) I practically worshipped Gary Larson, but I digress;-) Okay, I admit that some animals can learn some things. Perhaps this debate should have begun at the topic of sentiency. Can we not agree that, while being mammels, we are vastly different (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) For the most part, yes, but at the same time, less so than we thought. For a very few species, I start to suspect that David Brin is right about "uplift" being just around the corner. I'm kind of amazed that scientists have dragged their heels (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Scott Arthur

(...) A mixture of greed and fear. Scott A (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Don Heyse

(...) I hope you don't truly believe that, because it's just plain wrong. Society is based on extending the relationships learned early on in the family environment (whatever that may be) to encompass people in the neighborhood, and then beyond that (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Scott Arthur

(...) I was being cynical. I see too many parents working very long hours (to the detriment of their health, marriage & family) so that they may buy items they don’t need as they fear not conforming. Twenty years ago a “family day out” would be a (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Don Heyse

(...) Oh, silly me. Perhaps you could adopt one of these emoticons for when you're in cynical mode. >:-> Cynical; Devil-like; Really devilish remark; Has a crew cut; Leering >;-> Cynical wink; Irony; Winky and devil combined (a very lewd remark was (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Scott Arthur

(...) I think France has the most hols in the EU(?). I only get 6 weeks + 10 days public holiday. ;) Scott A (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) No one thing!!! People often pull this "sky is falling" gimick about some trivial little detail claiming that a change will cause the collapse of society. If we granted universal marriage rights to homosexuals -- as we would if we were a (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) And....? (...) How do you know? How do you claim to understand all of the social ramifications of such a shift? You can't even cite any historical references because such a proposition is unprecedented. Forgive me if I pass on your little (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) You keep asserting that the nuclear family is the foundation of society. I guess I thought you meant that the nuclear family is the foundation of society. Silly me. (...) It would improve it! (...) I think you left out some of the respect due. (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) All I am asking is upon what do you believe our society is based. If you think it is a myriad of things, fine. What are they? (...) Upon what exactly do you base your assertion? (...) What I mean is that you are asserting things for which you (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Gay Marriage —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'll cite the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution. You even know the amendment... it's the one that discusses the right of citizens to associate (or not) as they choose. Then I'll cite contract law in general. People can enter into (or not (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Leonard Hoffman

(...) Oh my god, Larry. That was beautiful. Perhaps the single best post I've read in OTD ever. -lenny (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —John Neal

(...) You are deliberately misinterpreting the Bill of Rights. Of course that Amendment had nothing to do with the concept of marriage. (...) The definition of marriage is the union of one man and one women. NO gay person is excluded from entering (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Larry Pieniazek

(...) A definition. NOT The definition. This point seems lost on you. Which is why you lose the debate. By definition. (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —John Neal

(...) What is your point? Don't be such a coward. Define it! (...) You mean by changing definition. JOHN (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Merriam-Webster: marriage: (2) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage Foul ball (counts as Strike one). You are using the term "marriage" to mean "traditional marriage", (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —John Neal

(...) Speaking of changing definitions-- I wonder how old that definition is! (...) Okay, can't you see how wrong and biased that is! Astonishing! (Evil indeed;-) (...) You green-eyed bigot! :-) Why do you draw the limit at 2??? How do you feel (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Indeed. (...) Not my cup of tea. (...) Hmm... Not my cup of tea either (I think my daughter has more sense than that) (...) Not my cup of tea either (my mom had issues, and we never had a very handsome dog) If you can get informed consent from (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Wait a minute...you said to go look it up. Did you mean in the Bible? I assumed you meant in the dictionary. (...) What?!? Encarta is the most widely used tool for elementary-school research in the United States. I thought you wanted us to (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Pedro Silva

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote: As long as no one is being harmed, they should go for it. The (...) I just knew there was someone out there who thought exactly the same as I did... well put, Chris! Pedro (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Scott Arthur

(...) My feeling is that it is the responsibility of government to ensure our children are provided with the best possible opportunities in childhood. It just so happens that children who are cared for by parents who are in a stable relationship (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Hopefully you mean "best possible within economic reason." Also, I'd like to see how the "stable relationship":"good start" metrics are compiled (you're reporting actual findings, right...not just opinion or impression?). Further, since I know (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Scott Arthur

(...) These are my phrases and the terms I've used are subjective. I suppose I'm just reflecting the view that most married ppl accept without really questioning it. If you want to "upset the apple cart", why not show me that I should question it? A (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) that was the best they could do. And I'll point out that I don't question the validity of any of the journals that they're referencing. Their main points were: (...) I think this is sort of putting the cart before the horse since it makes all (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —John Neal

(...) I did. Notice -->Bruce<-- chose a secondary definition, not the primary one. The cheek:-) (...) THIS IS PRECIOUSLY MY POINT!!! (I'm screaming, but not at you). This is what our kids are being taught! It's REVISIONIST and WRONG! (...) Then I (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I knew that. What I don't know is why. Why are you opposed to those in particular? (...) I can absolutely respect yor right to believe that and even to belong to an organization that believes that, such as a church. I would rather see marriage (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Frank Filz

"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:HzIL24.D99@lugnet.com... (...) they (...) apply to (...) about (...) There is a lot of baggage associated with marriage that should be available to any couple. The problem with (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gay Marriage —John Neal

(...) Practical and other utilitarian arguments aside, let's just say they go against my religious belief system. (...) Life is hard; it's no excuse. I'd say you may be correct and that that realization is irresponsible. (...) Unfortunately, that is (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Where's the harm? From one side of the issue, they get to be rid of those disgusting deviants once and for all. From the other, they get to be rid of the backward, protruding-forehead, neanderthals that have been stifling progress. It sounds (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Fair enough. When the Government and your church leaders tell you that you must accept the marriage of gays within your church, you can protest all you like, and I'll be right there with you in expressing that feeling. Unfortunately, that's (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Frank Filz

"Mr L F Braun" <braunli1@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message news:HzMHDG.1E6q@lugnet.com... (...) mean, wow, (...) caused a (...) Yea, anyone who is at least nominally a Christian who isn't Catholic has no business worrying about splitting churches. If (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gay Marriage —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) And nations! Like during the War of Northern Aggression? Chris ;-) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gay Marriage —Larry Pieniazek

(...) You mean the "War to Defend the 'Right' to Hold Slaves"? But ya, like that. (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gay Marriage —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) "And Bullwinkle "War Between the States"-hips his way down the field for Wossamotta U.... (I suppose one had to watch the episodes to get the civil-swivel-war between the states running gag) -->Nuthin' up m'sleeve, Presto!<-- (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gay Marriage —John Neal

(...) ROAR! (Guess I don't know my own strength!) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —James Powell

(...) The issue that I see is that the government (at least, the US federal one) does not recognize any other association for the purposes of financial gain. You can't tell me that the institution of marrage is sacredly between 1 man/ 1 woman, for (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I agree with everything James wrote, but I think the truly beneficial course of action is for the government to get out of the business of certifying certain interpersonal contracts as having special value. The People should be free to (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I'm innocent! Ambrose Bierce is to blame! Or that little shoulder devil that whispered in his ear... (...) Ewww...wwwuuuuuuue! My brother never picks up his socks! But then, I know two brothers who married two sisters.... (...) I suppose if (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —John Neal

(...) I'm so provincial-- I hadn't even heard of the Devil's Dictionary:-/ (now I get your smiley:-) (...) How efficient:-) (...) I think even the Mormons would protest that one! (...) HI-O! (...) Everyone else is-- except Scott!!!! 8^O JOHN (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Uh, no. You got it backwards. Bruce appears to be on the side with the rest of us. Chris (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) So, John, do you oppose all change in definition? Chris (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'm not sure why you're missing my point. I'm OK with any sort of union between any number of people (or, if in future other species are uplifted or discovered such that they can give informed consent) or other species as long as everyone (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —David Eaton

I have to admit, being a Massachusetts-ite, this subject line piqued my interest. Pardon while I crash the party... (...) Doesn't it though? I think Larry quoted the rights quite accurately. But you can get more specific than that if you're (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —John Neal

(...) I have no problem ending such inequities WRT to married couples verses gays. You don't have to redefine marriage to correct those wrongs! (...) I agree. (...) You assume incorrectly! The government is a terrible arbiter of right and wrong! (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) But you also seem to believe that the majority should be able to make anything illegal if it offends their sensibilities. Right? (...) Why? John, you have asserted time and again that I can't know what the result of making the changes that I (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —David Eaton

(...) Don't you? I mean, the way US laws are written, I believe there are rights provided to married couples that wouldn't be to anyone under something like 'civil unions'. Speaking of which, is that what you're advocating? If so, how would a 'civil (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Frank Filz

"David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message news:HzIHou.1yEv@lugnet.com... (...) example. (...) they (...) you (...) wives (...) could take (...) able (...) Insurance companies have always had to deal with an unbounded number of dependants - (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gay Marriage —Thomas Stangl

I don't see a problem with this either, except.... Some insurance companies essentially provide a "Bulk Discount" for dependents - the more you have, the less you pay per dependent. I think this is wrong. You are encouraging multiple dependents in (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gay Marriage —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) And that's all a matter for the individual insurance companies to work out with their customers, right? Chris (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gay Marriage —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Absent regulation preventing them from doing so, yes. However, in the world today insurance companies are heavily regulated as to who they can or can't cover and how they go about determining risk factors or premiums. So, no. Unfortunately. (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gay Marriage —David Eaton

(...) Huh-- I guess I'm not familiar enough with it not having any spouses or dependants of my own :) I guess basically the extreme case I'm trying to avoid by limiting the number of marriage participants is to keep someone from, say, getting 1600 (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gay Marriage —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Does it? Why must marriage be a special case of contract? (...) I think that if polygamy became popular the insurance companies would have ways of covering their budgets worked out way before it mattered. It is frankly startling to me that (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —David Eaton

(...) As I noted to Frank, if the system is set up to handle polygamy in a balanced way, then I'm all for it. My goal isn't to restrict marriage in any way, but more to prevent people from abusing it as a legal loophole. (...) Again, the only reason (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Frank Filz

"David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message news:HzIopJ.12np@lugnet.com... (...) participants (...) book, if (...) isn't (...) Hmm, but there are genetic conditions that are far more predictable in damaging children. Should we not allow (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gay Marriage —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Can you say Gattaca? Chris (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gay Marriage —David Eaton

(...) Good point. Hmm.. I'm not sure. Certainly as I mentioned, marriage isn't the issue in that case-- I'm still fine with brothers & sisters and people with disease X marrying. Procreation? Hmm. I guess it seems sort of cruel to me to have a child (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gay Marriage —Richard Parsons

(...) Nicely put. And it also nice to find myself on the same team as Larry (at least occaisionally :-). Richard Still baldly going... (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —John Neal

(...) A reason to give one pause in its own right! :-) JOHN (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

John, I want to go back and apologize for saying that one thing or another that you wrote sounds dumb. It was a stupid way for me to communicate. (...) OK, I'll approach this seriously. To claim that our society is "founded" upon any thing(s) (by (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Xenophobia —Scott Arthur

(...) Your comment appears a little xenophobic. Even if you are right, what is the big deal about immigrants being Muslims? Anyhow, in 40 years time your descendants’ 1st language will be Spanish. ;) Scott A (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Xenophobia —John Neal

(...) Well, in case you hadn't noticed, their is a titanic struggle for the heart and soul of Islam, and the extremists appear to be gaining the upper hand, and they aren't too keen on the ideas of freedom and democracy. (...) Doubtful. Maybe the (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Xenophobia —Scott Arthur

(...) Actually, I hadn’t noticed this “struggle”. Care to share your source? (...) Are these the same Islamic "extremists" that Reagan supported? (...) ...and there lies the error in your argument. Many of the Muslims in the EU come here for freedom (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Xenophobia —John Neal

(...) I forgot whom I engaged. Nevermind. JOHN (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Xenophobia —Scott Arthur

(...) …and I forgot you seldom feel the need to substantiate your opinions & tend to delete points you don't want to answer. ;) Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Xenophobia —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) My son is already not Aryan Pure, so it matters not to me. The school he goes to is heavily Chinese and Korean, anyway, so I figure if he learned those languages along with Spanish it would just make him that more adaptable. -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) The line that I draw is at victimization. That's not arbitrary. If no one is being victimized then what they're doing is OK. I'm not offended by either incest or bestiality aside from the difficulties in obtaining informed consent. Why should (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) This, too, is moral relativism, which you have alternatively embraced and reviled in earlier posts. As far as incest goes, you have (URL) previously acknowledged> that incestuous relationships are wrong because they conflict with cultural (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) I realize this and I believe in an absolute morality, but he doesn't. I am trying to appeal to his sensibilities, not mine (which I know he flatly rejects). I am arguing on his turf, as it were. (...) I assume you are talking about when I (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) But you're wrote "You draw your lines, I draw mine." That is an explicit statement of self-imposed limitations. Is that your intent? Or do you really mean "You draw your lines, I adhere to absolute lines drawn out for me by millennia-old (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) Thank you for that clarification. I meant that I choose lines that I believe are absolutely drawn out. My point was that I am not the only one who adheres to drawn lines. We all do. (...) Eh, when the perspective is from the Creator of the (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) "We are the Borg. Lower your shields and prepare to be assimilated. Resistance is futile." One person's 'perversion'(1) is another person's societal norm. What makes something a perversion? A (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) Um, these rights are already very easy to take away. George W. Bush has, for example, taken them away from a whole bunch of people, both as Governor and as President, both here and abroad. Is Dubya so powerful that he can supplant the Will of (...) (20 years ago, 17-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) Sure, IRL, but I was speaking theoretically, as I believe were the FF. Merely because someone is able to oppress me and take away my rights doesn't justify it. (...) That is precisely why I claim they are divinely-endowed, so that no one has (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) When you are oppressed you retain your rights. There are only two ways to be rid of rights: to surrender them (dangerously easy to do by mistake), and to have them taken from you through due process as established by the US Constitution. I (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) I can accept your formulation more readily because it doesn't appeal to deus ex machina, but I'm not comfortable with the notion of "inherency." How is inherency identified/verified, and who gets to decide what is inherent? Hmm. Now that I (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) The problem here is the conflation of legal notion with absolute reality. Rights are the legal/political expression of an aesthetic that nearly everyone (involved in the discussion) supports. While I wrote before that I was siding with John, (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Frank Filz

"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:HzICys.15Iv@lugnet.com... (...) as if (...) The (...) same (...) I've definitely had some trouble with the origin of rights. They feel inherent, yet it also seems generally accepted (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

I've written here before that I think it would be more valuable to reframe the entire notion of rights as responsibilities. I think the absolutism of rights is easy to get tripped up on. (At least for me.) (...) One common stance is that an entity (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) This is a very nice summation, overall. (...) A good distinction to bear in mind. I don't think I have the ammunition to prove my case scientifically, so I should probably say I'm aiming for the philosophical angle. To clarify: By "inherent (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

Given that explanation, I think we both agree that discussion of "inherent rights" must assume that it is a social/legal construct. And that discussions of these general topics might be better served focussing on "inherent preferences." At least (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) But it does demonstrate irrefutably that those rights are not inalienable, contrary to the assertion of the founding fathers. Inalienable rights that can be taken away aren't very inalienable. And in all practical ways, rights that are utterly (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I think you just said that it's sick because it's sick. Is that really what you meant? (...) I have, over and over -- across the years, claimed that the rights of the majority and the minority must both be set up so that they do not conflict (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I'm surrounded by Abrahmics. I'm not sure if I have enough perspective to verify what you're saying. My experiences with Indians (fairly extensive across fifteen years in university and IT) do lead me to believe that they (at least the ones (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Pedro Silva

(...) Could it be because latin cultures are fundamentally matriarchal? Pedro (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

More Orwell, for everyone! —Richard Parsons

(...) Mmmmm. I have long advocated that 1984 should be required reading in the last year of high school education. And the older I get, the louder I hear it echoed in the world around me. Maybe that's me, maybe its the world. The other thing I have (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More Orwell, for everyone! —Larry Pieniazek

(...) There's also the small issue that it costs a lot of money to do that. Who is going to pay for it? (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More Orwell, for everyone! —Richard Parsons

(...) Oh I don't know. I'd put it somewhere around the $300m mark. I never cease to be amazed at how much money we spend on advertising programmes to alert the general public as to how nice and clever the government thinks it is, particularly with (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Educational value of travel (was: More Orwell, for everyone!) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) You know, I'm not immediately opposed to the idea of including a two year stint abroad in every undergraduate education. I don't know about an around-world-tour, but two years in another nation -- half study and half peace corps like service (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Educational value of travel (was: More Orwell, for everyone!) —Scott Arthur

(...) A year abroad is already a mandatory part of many courses in EU countries. Even where it is not, the (URL) makes it easy. A year studying overseas forces students to be more independent and take ownership of their own learning (rather than (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

More waste (was Re: More Orwell, for everyone! —Larry Pieniazek

(...) (snipped the rest away) Precisely. I think you mean the taxpayer, in other words. Bollocks. If you found A$300M that's not needed, how about this for an idea... give it BACK to the taxpayers you taxed in the first place instead of spending it (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

The Real Waste Re: More waste (was Re: More Orwell, for everyone! —Scott Arthur

(...) One has to (URL) the Balance Right>: today's Undergrad's are tomorrow's tax payers. The better the education they get today, the more they can earn (and contribute back) in the future. Why not base education on ability to learn not ability to (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: The Real Waste Re: More waste (was Re: More Orwell, for everyone! —Don Heyse

(...) Because that doesn't account for the desire to learn. If you truly want to learn, you'll find a way to pay. Your way rewards intelligent lazy people (you?). I'd say there's a balance somewhere, but you haven't got it right either. And since (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: The Real Waste Re: More waste (was Re: More Orwell, for everyone! —Scott Arthur

(...) Good students have desire and ability. Good courses should only take students with both qualities... … to do anything else is a waste of everyone’s time. (...) Why so? Or are you too lazy to explain yourself? The song is rather dated now, but (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: The Real Waste Re: More waste (was Re: More Orwell, for everyone! —Don Heyse

(...) Perhaps, but that doesn't help us right the balance in in your proposal above. (...) I'm truly surprised you haven't suggested one obvious solution. Why not let the government regulate the wages of those overpaid, barely working university (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

"free" at the point of delivery —Scott Arthur

(...) I have no idea what you are talking about; I have never set foot in a US university. As an aside, I understand university "professors" in the US do not get paid out of term-time? (...) Read what I said. It is only "free" at the point of (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: "free" at the point of delivery —Don Heyse

(...) I never mentioned the US. Take your blinders off, or open your eyes. I know. It's Monday. (...) Exactly what I'm talking about. It should not be free at the point of delivery because that simply produces over-educated idealists with no concept (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: "free" at the point of delivery —Scott Arthur

(...) 2 Points then: 1. What experience do you have of Universities outside the USA? 2. What makes you think "professors" are "overpaid"? (...) First you will have to show me that "free" education produces "idealists with no concept of the real (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: "free" at the point of delivery —Don Heyse

(...) Either you're extremely sensitive about this, or you must've missed the winky. That was intended to be an absurd example to bring something you said earlier (and eventually snipped) into perspective. But if you wish, I suppose you could (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: "free" at the point of delivery —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I have the impression that in nations with a richer socialist tradition (like the UK), it is much more acceptable to accept from the public coffers the kind of aid that's being discussed here and in turn, to take seriously the responsibility (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: The Real Waste —Richard Parsons

(...) Is this considered an issue in the US? Apart from the odd mindlessly populist talk radio presenter, its not here. Its hard to know whether Don's being insightful, inciteful, sarcastic, or just pointlessly talkative. I am trying hard to (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Real Waste —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) People say things like that occasionally, but I don't think it's an endemic view. I know a few professors and they're all quite underpaid -- by which I mean they could be working in the private sector and making twice as much or more for (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Real Waste (lyrics from Fashion News) —Richard Parsons

(...) An interesting choice. And what you might say with irony I say with conviction (1). These lyrics would be a fine theme. I'd say Scott is trying to change some people's 'facts', because their 'facts' just aren't. As the song points out - you (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: The Real Waste (lyrics from Quick Fashion) —Scott Arthur

(...) Personally, I (URL) Can’t Get Enough>. ;) Scott A (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: The Real Waste (lyrics from Fashion News) —Don Heyse

(...) Yes, but simply reprinting the counter-clockwise spin is a rather poor way of "challenging" things. (...) Sorry about that. Scott pointed out the site, not me, and I didn't see the pop-ups because Mozilla filters them out. You should try it. (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: The Real Waste (lyrics from Fashion News) —Scott Arthur

(...) Don, If you really think that is what I'm doing, please just show us the "facts" and prove me wrong. You'll find it much easier than quoting song lyrics to make a point... if you have one! ;) Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: The Real Waste (lyrics from Fashion News) —Don Heyse

(...) Yeah, but quoting song lyrics is so much more fun. In a way, I suppose that is my point. :) Don (20 years ago, 12-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: The Real Waste (lyrics from Fashion News) —Richard Parsons

(...) Goodness. There's a lot more to it than that. I was surprised that you discount it so easily, but that's my mistake. Obviously I should expect that there are avidly pro-establishment folks who treat naysayers with the same disdain I feel when (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

when you change the facts —Scott Arthur

(...) I'm not sure I agree that that is what the song is about. I think it is saying there are two types of news stories (facts): Real news: "Bomb blast victim fights for life". Celebrity tittle-tattle: "Princess Di is wearing a new dress". Gore's (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: when you change the facts —Richard Parsons

(...) Happy to defer to the Depeche Mode experts. As always, can only talk with certainty about what it means to me :-) Richard Still baldly going (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: when you change the facts —Pete White

(...) Now this would be NEWS ! Can't this fashion victim just leave us alone. (...) Next thing they will tell us, is that H.Paul is representing New Zealand in International Rugby League Test matches. (20 years ago, 12-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: when you change the facts —Scott Arthur

(...) Who cares about Rugby League? That said, I'm now (URL) loosing> interest in Union too. Scott A (20 years ago, 14-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: The Real Waste Re: More waste (was Re: More Orwell, for everyone! —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I don't know. I fear the room for draconian restrictions placed on "ability to learn" based on who gets to decide. Do you just mean it should be free to all period or that there should be entrance requirements and expulsion criteria? I'd hate (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Real Waste Re: More waste (was Re: More Orwell, for everyone! —Scott Arthur

(...) The latter. (...) Entry should be based on evidence of previous educational attainment (e.g. school results). Good school kids normally make good UG students. Basically, nobody who meets the entrance standards should be rejected because they (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More waste —Richard Parsons

(...) A very fine idea (the reducing the overall tax burden part), if there's no sufficiently constructive use to which to put the money. A very popular call too - don't waste my money on other people or the future, give it back to me. Obviously we (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Don Heyse

(...) Oh, I don't know, maybe just that I need to get out and see more movies so as I know what yins all are talkin' about. (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) Whoa--I recognize that accent! Are you from the Pittsburgh area? Dave! (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Don Heyse

(...) I spent some time there a few decades ago. It's nice to know the old western PA colloquial still exists. Brings back memories... Enjoy, Don (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Scott Arthur

(...) Hmm. In the UK {all} the parties produce “manifestos” for General Elections; they can be bought at bigger newsagents for ~£5 (US$8-$10). The elected party is expected to stick to their manifesto (esp. if there is no change of leader). When the (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Koudys

(...) I'm getting more pessimistic as life goes on--I'd be surprised if something *doesn't* happen that'll help Dubya in the months leading up to the election--something like "Oh look! WoMD found in the deserts of Iraq!" or "Tankers of natural gas (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) (puts conservative hat on;-) Well, first, I wouldn't ever be happy that an attack on the order of 9-11 would occur. Frankly, I share your suspicion (if that is indeed where you are going) that an attack will occur on our soil to influence our (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) Certainly not! I didn't mean to imply that, and I apologize. (...) Bush is in both a tough and a clever spot, in a way. To date, he's been running as The Man Who Can Keep Us Safe. But if a terrorist attack occurs on US soil, he'll instantly (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Rob Hendrix

(...) problem (...) would (...) hacks (...) A slightly on-topic response... If a nuke detonated in DC, there would probably be no BF!!! And that means no Christina either if the blast was large enough or the fallout engulfed Arlington... ;( (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Ummm, I take it that you aren't going to answer the question... Let's see: you basically blamed Kerry for any attack (and ignored that Americans traditionally rally around the incumbent if attacked, which means any attack is actually an aid to (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Bruce Hietbrink

(...) I'm confused. It seems that John's answer was very clear from the snipped quotes above. 1. "A delay for logistical reasons would be valid." Expanding on John's point, I would suggest that something such as Dave's hypothetical about a power (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Ross Crawford

(...) Only because someone decided paper ballots aren't good enough any more. ROSCO (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) LOL Many don't appreciate the (URL) electronic variety> either! JOHN (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) It's clear? Did he mean Marshal Law the comic? Martial law? I'm so confused... ;-) (...) I think Dave!'s scenario implies a longer term than "a few days", otherwise there isn't a lot of point to the question. Basically John is restating the (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) I'm sorry. I was referring to "Marshall Crenshaw" (or was that cole slaw.... perhaps I meant Cole Porter, or maybe even (URL) Coalporter>) Yeah, that's the ticket! (What's that you say, Scott? More plagarism???) (...) Come on, the question was (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I keep looking for something like marshal/marshall/martial....oh wait, there should be a comma after "valid". You sneaky devil - I almost missed it! Do I win a cookie? (Flakey Flix, fudge, no substituting Jack Stone macrofigs) Oooo...ooops, (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Scott Arthur

(...) I agree 100%. I very much doubt an attack will occur on US soil on the scale of 911 before the election. I know I'm a cynic, but I read some of Bush's 'warnings' as partly fear-mongering & partly electioneering. I feel there is an attempt to (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) I didn't expect a green-eyed inquistition...:-) (...) I think you misunderstood my post, -->Bruce<--, if not completely. 1. Assuming an attack came on, oh, for old time's sake, 9-11 (al-Qaeda seems to enjoy this kind of Islamic brand of (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) This is a point worth unpacking. Although the election in Spain was influenced by the train bombing, the fact that most of the Spanish electorate opposed the Iraq war was as least as important. In the US, the drumbeat for war was communicated (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) You may indeed be correct; I can tell you that if we did get attacked, you can bet that conservatives would fear a "Spanish response", and would spin the attack as an attempt by al-Qaeda to influence the outcome in order to elect Kerry (who, (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Actually, I understood you better than you did, I think. :-) (...) But you wanted to plant the notion that such an attack would be to aid Kerry, regardless of what Kerry would want. It was just the spin you had to put on it when it really (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) Well if you want my opinion, then give it to me already! (...) I wasn't spinning; I was just predicting how conservatives would spin it. (...) Yup. Hard to predict what such an event would precipitate. (...) Again, I would be against a delay (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Wayne McCaul

(...) While I'm not a Conservative, I would like to say that this has been in the back, middle and -more lately- forefront of my mind since the lead up to Iraq. It doesn't even have to happen here in the states. There's no real reason a even a (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Larry Pieniazek

Why is this a question for the conservatives? (...) That's not what the constitution provides for. An event on the order of 9/11 (without minimising how horrific it was) is enough to justify closing stock markets, perhaps, but not enough to justify (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) Because I already know the answer that *sane* people would give. 8^) (...) I accept this in principle, but my question is more along the lines of Would Dubya Try It? And if so, what then? (...) Sure, if we were looking at Kerry's bid for (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Now that's a bit uncalled for. If someone is an *actual* conservative, and I do know quite a few of them--intelligent ones, too--they're just as outraged over the bloat and entanglement of our present government. This is why I raise the cry (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) Oh, come now! I think everyone knows I was being facetious. If anyone feels disenfranchised by my jest, please let me know, and I'll make amends. Dave! (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I resent the fact that you're painting with such a broad brush. Just because I agree with you on this issue, doesn't make me sane. :-) Chris (20 years ago, 7-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Nor, for that matter, does it necessarily follow that sanity is possessed by Dave! (that was a tough one to get to come out correctly(1) in under 90 seconds of thought) 1 - ... having the phrase or sentence end in Dave! (20 years ago, 7-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the sane out there —Richard Parsons

(...) And your insistence on the distinction implies that there is some doubt as to Dave!'s sanity. I am prepared to vouch Dave!'s sanity. (Mwa ha ha ha. MWA HA Ha ha.) Then again, I think pretty much everyone is sane. Even the folks John habitually (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the sane out there —John Neal

(...) It was a clever, logical twist on the assertion of Dave! (a joke) (...) Well, from your statement below, that's not saying much. (...) ??? Except those who aren't? (...) "Consummate sense"? Explain and cite please. Are you saying that the (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Consummate sense? I think not! —Scott Arthur

(...) Richard is a nice guy; I'm sure he did no mean that. Personally, I don’t draw a huge distinction between the “deliberate killing of innocent people” and the indiscriminate/disproportionate use of force which results in the “killing of innocent (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the sane out there —Richard Parsons

(...) Of course it was a joke silly. In the same way as Dave!'s assertion was a joke. But in Lar's special way, its also a jab. And I happenned to be feeling a bit anti-establishment, defender of the oppressed at the time. Its all this reading about (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the sane out there —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I'll say that. When "one's will" is the pursuit of basic human rights and every other avenue of approach has been reasonably exploited to no avail. It's not like they just want extra chocolates or something. (...) The right to worship is a (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) Oops! Good point. My sincere apologies also to any people whom I've libeled with false allegations of sanity. 8^) Dave! (20 years ago, 7-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, Dave, I don't think it's all that hypothetical anymore. What is particularly interesting to me is the fact that plans are being discussed for postponement, but they're allegedly only a "worst case scenario." I guess we'll see... Dave! (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Koudys

(...) As if this isn't a set-up... Some 'leaked' info about 'maybe postphoning' the election in the event of some sort of threat/attack. So soften up the ground before Nov., then "Oh, we raised the threat to red, we have to postphone the election." (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) You have to know that if the US is embroiled in a bloody civil war, Canada will not be unaffected. Chris (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Laswell

(...) Of course not. We'd annex you while noone was looking. And noone would pay any attention to your protests because everyone in the US is already too busy complaining about their own problems to pay attention to anyone else's complaints, and (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) Canada is going to have to take a number. I'd rather have (the rest of) Mexico first:-) JOHN (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Laswell

(...) That'd never happen. Conservative corporate interests wouldn't want to see it happen because it'd mean that all of those companies that have moved production plants down there would have to start paying US minimum wage (or worse, Union wage), (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Koudys

(...) Stepping off my 'trash Dubya' soap box... K, Canada is assimilated by the US-- Can I run for Prez? Is being 'born in the US' retroactive for Canadians if Canada becomes 51-64 states? Dave K (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Laswell

(...) That's a good question. The closest precedent I could think of is that if you weren't a natural born citizen, you could still be eligible by being a citizen of the US before the constitution was adopted, but I remember reading that that was (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) The US doesn't recognize dual citizenship. It's a bit of a scam because they do sort of look the other way, but it is possible for the US to retroactively negate your citizenship if they find that you have also claimed Canadian (or any) (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) Yowza! Is that correct? I know someone who has dual US and Irish citizenship, and she'd be surprised to learn this tidbit. Not that I'm refuting it; I just never heard it before. Dave! (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I'm not willing to do the research, though I'll shoot off an email to my friend, to support my understanding, but as I understand it, the official stance is something like "Well, if you're a citizen of that other nation, you must not be a (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) Don't go to any trouble--I didn't mean to give you an assignment. Honestly, I should just suggest to my friend that she check it out herself. After all, it's her dilemma. Thanks all the same. Dave! (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) OK, I was totally wrong. The US pretends that dual citizenship doesn't exist. It's neither expressly forbidden nor permitted. Some nations, like Germany expressly forbid it. Dual citizens primarily risk losing their citizenship by (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Laswell

(...) It is forbidden, but not very strongly. It's basically under optional enforcement, so the US can revoke your citizenship whenever it's convenient as long as it can be proven that you've done something that warrants such action. Technically the (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Laswell

(...) Some of my friends introduced me to a family that they met after moving to NYC, where the mother is Canadian, the father is from New Zealand, and the kids were both born in the US, thus affording both kids triple-citizenship...until they turn (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) Have you forgotten what it was like down there;-) (...) Yes, but in your case, we'd make an exception;-D JOHN (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I disagree. David K is eminently qualified to be Prez, after all, he's a faithful West Wing watcher. That right there makes him more qualified than our current incumbent (who I suspect may not be able to turn televisions on without (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) He is??? ;-) Hmmm, is "TV watcher" considered a qualification for the presidency by Libertarians? I see that employment isn't;-) (...) You know, that's not as easy as it sounds these days. I don't watch much TV, but when I am at a friend's (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No, but then, the elections are rigged against minor parties anyway, so really, what does it matter what we think? What matters is what the media and the major parties think, right? If you're going to bet on a rigged race, it helps to know who (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Koudys

(...) I think I say this once every few years, but it's worth repeating every so often--when it comes right down to it, no matter what gets said here in a rant or a tiff or a tirade, people here (in o.t-d, and also elsewhere on LUGNET) are great! (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) No we're not! Chris (getting things back to debate :-) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes we are! (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Koudys

(...) Yes we are dammit!! Agree with me or I'll hit you over the head with this spoon! Dave K -I say to all you villians--KNOCK OFF ALL THAT EVIL!!!!! (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Um, we're going to have to CHARGE you for those Kumbaya lessons, you realise. (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Koudys

(...) K, so Dave K's Prez.. SecState would be... I'd say Larry (or John, I'm still debating that) SecDef would be Bruce (cause I like his style about dealing with foreign peeps) Who else... Who knows anything about agriculture? Dave K (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Who cares? What does agriculture have to do with government? (other than that one is a fertilizer consumer and the other a fertilizer producer) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Pedro Silva

(...) Oo! Oo! Me! Me! Pick me!!! I can actually save you some money, being appointed Health & Energy Secretary simultaneously. My Programme for the next 4 years will deal with the growing obesity problem amongst youths, and at the same time tackle (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Pedro Silva wrote: (snip) something very similar made the page just before the back cover in this month's Wired.... (the "products from the future" page)... a health club where you get credits in cash back for ergs put into (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) Cool! An Ergonomic Stimulus package. Dave! (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Holy Cow! I'm in New Jersey...when did we get sold to Canada? And why would they want us? Chris (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Laswell

(...) Clearly it was for the...um... . . . Maybe we blackmailed them? ;P (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Don Heyse

(...) Uh, Dave, you're appear to be talking to yourself and you're making even less sense than usual. (Just kidding. Please don't hit me.) Unless I missed the major event, or the election was already cancelled, (there's nothing about it in the news (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, when I first mentioned the hypothetical, it was *my* hypothetical, and now that the powers-that-be are addressing it, I'm becoming more concerned. My reasons for this are several: 1. Special elections tend to favor the Right wing, due to (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Laswell

(...) I object to that on the grounds that while Bush was understandably interested in keeping the vote in his favor, Gore only presented an alternative that was decidedly biased in his favor (selectively recounting only known pro-Dem counties in a (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) To be fair to Gore, though, the contested counties were the ones that showed the irregularities, such as questionable "felon" rosters, questionable butterfly ballots, questionable voting machines, and generally questionable tactics of denying (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Laswell

(...) I thought the issue was that they were unlikely to vote for Buchanan. (...) The issue was that the Democrats were only bringing known pro-Dem areas into question in the first place. Voting errors occur all the time, and Gore's campaign wasn't (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) Interestingly, it appears that the GOP has decided that e-voting is so unreliable that it's encouraging Florida Republicans to use their absentee ballots instead. (URL) this is all becoming less and less hypothetical as we go along. Hmm... (...) (20 years ago, 5-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Laswell

(...) I've been against e-voting from very first moment I heard about it, because the closer it gets to being done over the internet, the closer it gets to the point where either a hacker can directly tweak the results, or a timed virus can prevent (...) (20 years ago, 5-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Frank Filz

"Purple Dave" <purpledave@maskofdestiny.com> wrote in message news:I1zIBB.6M0@lugnet.com... (...) you (...) to (...) not one (...) party (...) door). The best ballots I have seen so far were in Wake County North Carolina. A very easy ballot where (...) (20 years ago, 5-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

"In order to do a proper count one has to know how many people voted in the first place." —Scott Arthur

(...) Postal votes have been used in the UK for yonks. However, they have been used recently as a tool to improve voter turnout. This has led to three problems: Party workers have been "assisting" voters with the paperwork. Within some ethnic (...) (20 years ago, 6-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: "In order to do a proper count one has to know how many people voted in the first place." —David Laswell

(...) We've got Absentee Ballots, but they're primarily aimed at those who either can't be in their district on voting day (such as deployed troops), or can't reasonably be expected to travel to their voting place (such as the elderly or (...) (20 years ago, 6-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I think this is an example of what people all over the net are reacting to: (URL) particularly like the phrase "secure the election" in a quote from Homeland Security. Chris (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Ross Crawford

(...) And I liked the quote from Ciro Rodriguez: "If they do this, boy, my God, they're extremely desperate". I'm wondering if strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing it up, or flying a plane into a building only requires you to be a little bit (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Laswell

(...) Evidentally not, since passengers on the ill-fated 9/11 flights were telling friends/family that the pilots had to lock their fellow-terrorists out of the cockpit to prevent them from retaking control of the planes to save their lives. You've (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) I am with Lincoln on this matter (from the article): == Abraham Lincoln was urged by some aides to suspend the election of 1864 - during the US Civil War - but despite the expectation that he would lose, he refused. "The election is a (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Laswell

(...) Lincoln was in a very different situation than what we have now. There was a war being waged on US soil, but there probably wasn't much concern about terrorist attacks specifically aimed at disrupting the elections. The people being (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) I should have done my research: A Republican of some refute has already (URL) weighed in> on this issue, and I'm happy to accept his opinion, even if his notion of Republican values is wildly out of touch with that of today's administration. (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Some have tried to refute him, yes. Was that a Freudian slip? (...) I am not so keen on his suspension of Habeas Corpus or imposition of Income Tax, or on not supporting the right of peaceful secession but at least you can't successfully (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) Whoops! Indeed my Freudian slip is showing. Oh, to be Jung again. (...) As to the first, I agree. As to the second, I disagree (but with reservations). As to the third, he was oath-sworn to fulfill the office of President, so in fighting (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)