|
 | | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (...) currently (...) This has been addressed in this string already. If you don't want the 8 fold path forced on you, it is only reasonable that you shouldn't force the 10 commandments on someone else. It's that simple. (...) of (...) such (...) If (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|  
bruce
(score: 1.370)
|
|
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) I'll clarify my point if it was a little murky: Frank stated the purpose of the 2nd amendment was for the populace to keep the government in check (or words to that effect). That may have have been in part what the 2nd amendment is about, but (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.370)
|
|
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) to (...) I have this silly picture in my mind of a western showdown at high noon, where the two participants square off. Crowds gather. Sweat drips down their faces. Steely eyes glare unblinkingly. Fingers twitch, waiting for the other guy to (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.370)
|
|
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (...) oppressive? (...) which (...) You wanted the ten commandments in schools. That's forcing your religion on someone else. (...) have (...) not (...) My point remains: If we aren't teaching prayers and the 10 commandments in school, and we (USA) (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.370)
|
|
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes: : (...) Go back earlier in this string. You specifically said schools. As to the rest, splitting hairs, or do you deny that the 10 commanmants are part of your religion? (...) see (...) Why bother (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.370)
|
|
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (...) on (...) your (...) She said that they shouldn't be and your argued otherwise. You are just splitting hairs. This lack of candor is getting tiresome. (...) been (...) as (...) Shroud your argument how you will, you still want to supplant (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.370)
|
|
| | Re: Some wins for freedom from the Supremes
|
| (...) Mmmm, and just when I was thinking that we should quit the allegiance to the Queen thingie, and get all republicy. Particularly me with my pro-Irish sentiments. It turns out that we have already essentially signed up as a US state (and a (...) (20 years ago, 30-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| |
|
irish
(score: 1.370)
|
|
| | Re: Wench as a word
|
| (...) part (...) I can't recall a single liberal in my acquaintance that thinks this way. Yes, you will run into this line of reasoning in some black studies courses, but I don't think you will find too many people who buy into it. Bruce (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.369)
|
|
| | Re: Ad hominem attacks
|
| (...) Liberal, conservative, democrat, republican: They are all politicians. Can't trust one of 'em! :-) I'd credit Kennnedy for the cold war victory, by the way, not Ronny. The extremely short form: Kennedy makes Kruschev look bad over cuban missle (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.369)
|
|
| | Re: Ad hominem attacks
|
| (...) Can't (...) Oh alright. You can probably find some politicians untainted by the process somewhere. You were supposed to laugh, not argue! :-) Again I'd point to the LP track record (if I just could dig it (...) And you'll kindly notice that I (...) (25 years ago, 27-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.368)
|
|
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.368)
|
|
| |
|
irish
(score: 1.368)
|
|
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.368)
|
|
| | Re: Reagan... not exactly libertarian, but close
|
| (...) history (...) Both the far right and left merge under totalitarianism. I came to this conclusion independently many years ago, so it seems to be fairly self-evident once you get into it. My experience is that conservatives are the ones who see (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.368)
|
|
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.368)
|
|
| |
|
irish
(score: 1.367)
|
|
| | Re: Reagan... not exactly libertarian, but close
|
| (...) Haha! I like that one! There is an essential truth to it. But once again, you are ascribing to Clinton what in truth many politicians are guilty of. Bush / \ Liberal Conservative That's the picture GWB gave at the start of the campaign. When (...) (24 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.367)
|
|
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.367)
|
|
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.367)
|
|
| | Re: Reagan... not exactly libertarian, but close
|
| (...) "Compassionate conservative." When push came to shove, he ran as far right as he could and tried to declare McCain a liberal (I would hardly declare Clinton a liberal, much less McCain). (...) People are always trying to paint their opposition (...) (24 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.367)
|
