Debate : Search Results: bruce half irish


Off-Topic / Debate / Search Results: bruce half irish

Results 341 – 360 of about 1900.

Search took 0.01 CPU seconds.

Messages: Full | Brief | Compact

Sort: Prefer Newer | Prefer Older | Best Match

		Re: What about the first?
(...) I'm surprised, ->Bruce<-, that you'd even recognize humility in a leader, given whom you recently voted into office;-) JOHN (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

bruce
(score: 0.495)

		Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
(...) No, he gets to be intolerant because he doesn't believe in tolerance - he just doesn't want intolerance of his intolerance, and will pretend that any intolerance of his intolerance is the same as his intolerance itself, and therefore said (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

bruce
(score: 0.495)

		Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
(...) So, you are saying that those that can't stand racists aren't as bad as the actual racists, they are worse. As I said, stupid or self-serving. (...) It is the justification of racism that I am trying to understand (well, I do, it is a game to (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

bruce
(score: 0.495)

		Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
(...) And I am saying that those that want to be intolerant (read: haters of those different from their own narrow views) have come up with an ego-defense mechanism that tries to equate their intolerance of others as the same as the disapproval of (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

bruce
(score: 0.495)

		Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
(...) Haha! The first thought that entered my brain upon reading the above was "Isn't this the place that brought us the Scopes Monkey Trial?" I clicked on the link and sure enough it's the very same county, not just the state. -->Bruce<-- (21 years ago, 18-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

bruce
(score: 0.495)

		Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
(...) What does membership in a private club have to do with forcing gays out of their own private property? And, just to address your example, the fictional "Todd" may well have to justify his reason, and to a judge, depending on the Terms of (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

bruce
(score: 0.495)

		Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
(...) Easily answered: because said bigots are trying to limit the freedom of those that they are bigoted against. If, say, a community that was a majority of Gays attempted to ban Christian fundamentalists from their community ("They aren't wanted (...) (21 years ago, 18-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

bruce
(score: 0.495)

		Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
(...) Not the same example. What you want to do is forcibly evict Dave! from Lugnet because he (for the sake of this argument) plays with Brand X, even though he is not doing it on Lugnet. (...) Not doubtful at all - they have defended (...) (21 years ago, 18-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

bruce
(score: 0.495)

		Re: The Parable ot the Tortured Debtor
I'm following up to o-t.debate not to be combative, just because I'm not really discussing the MOC much. (...) I don't think it's the punishment that is the novelty here, but rather God's forgiveness. At least the Xtian viewpoint is that Christ (...) (21 years ago, 17-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 0.494)

		Re: The absurdity of American pop culture
(...) I'm not sure how to resolve the conflicts in the subject header, the actual article, the inferences you draw from it, and Carlin's conclusion, "Society can be counted on to let this fade." :-) (21 years ago, 16-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 0.494)

		Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
(...) I'm saying that your examples are the exact same as the model you are criticizing. You cite three supporting people (from a single source: Lugnet) as an example of a more believable evidence, and I'll I am doing is pointing out that that is (...) (21 years ago, 15-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 0.494)

		Re: Terrorists hate spelling properly
(...) Who can keep up with British backwardness, I tell ya! :-) (oops) But still worth making fun of! De feet, boss, de feet! (...) Considering how much you ran on about it, I doubt that! :-) (...) See! I was right! (...) Michaelangelo disagrees (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

bruce
(score: 0.494)

		Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles)
(...) Ducking for cover as the opposition has a field day with this... -->Bruce<-- (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

bruce
(score: 0.494)

		Re: Terrorists hate freedom
(...) (rereading what I wrote) Nope, didn't say that. They all (...) Allegedly. Maybe. Maybe not. If they were, two years held without charges? Those in charge are incompetent or evil. Take your pick, we need to get rid of them either way. When I (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

bruce
(score: 0.494)

		Re: Terrorists hate freedom
(...) You have summed up the problem without realizing it, I think. If, for example, an administration wanted to quiet someone, all they have to do is throw them in the Gulag (I like Richard's appraisal of what it is) and simply refuse to divulge (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

bruce
(score: 0.494)

		Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
(...) I didn't say that I thought they were right, or wrong, just that I was amazed at your example. (...) Freudian equivalent of a banana peel? (...) So, within the universe of the Bible, Luke, Matthew, John, and Mark are sufficiently separate (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 0.494)

		Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
(...) Er-hem. I know what you are trying to get at, I'm just trying to point out that your examples aren't exactly the best for doing that (and mostly just to give you are hard time for humor's sake). In your example above, all that's true, but it's (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 0.494)

		Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
(...) Ummmmmm, where are you going with this? You ironically note that quoting yourself as a source is dubious by itself, but with Todd, Tim, and Jake providing corroborating evidence, you are at least more credible. But in the next breath you (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

bruce
(score: 0.494)

		Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
(...) Yet. Courage is standing up for something you believe in the face of the consequences - that the other side has turned out too gutless to do anything about it doesn't change that. I (...) Let me introduce you to my counter-argument: Winchester (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

bruce
(score: 0.493)

		Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
(...) Which doesn't mean a thing if they are in violation of the constition. That's the whole point in doing this kind of thing - to test the law. Gotta admire their courage. (...) What a frivilous and idiotic misuse of the amendment process - just (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

bruce
(score: 0.493)

More: Next Page >>