Debate : Search Results: bruce half irish


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

Results 721 – 740 of about 1900.

Search took 0.01 CPU seconds.

Messages: Full | Brief | Compact

Sort: Prefer Newer | Prefer Older | Best Match

		Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
(...) It should be noted that the 2nd amendment itself in no way addresses that its purpose is for the overthrow of the government or as a hedge against tyranny. (...) The "well-regulated militia" that opted to go its own way was the Confederate (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.230)

		Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
(...) That's too cryptic for me. Guess I'll have to misunderstand you, too. Bruce (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.230)

		Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
(...) Larry is absolutely right on this. The system is set up to make it difficult for marginal parties to grow. Essentially, if you wish to gain any power, you need to subvert one of the existing parties through infilteration. The question is (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.230)

		Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
(...) If one has to start somewhere, Iraq is a pretty good place to start. Of course, one has to question Dubya's reasons (and complete lack of backing up his rhetoric with any thing like facts) for starting in the first place. (...) It's good for (...) (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.230)

		Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
(...) It says "the security of a free state", not "the maintaining of a free state from internal tyrants" or even "securing a free state". It's a long reach to place your interpretation on the law as written. Bruce (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.229)

		Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
(...) Of course the perception is fact. "Perception" as in there is the perception that Israel is the victim. You misconstrued my answer. (...) Who cares? I was merely pointing out that you were being inconsistent. Or you weren't making your real (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.229)

		Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
(...) You weren't paying attention to earlier messages. The law as written. If you want to move onto later claims, that's another story. (...) Is this addressed to me or the board in general? If me, you are barking up the wrong tree. Bruce (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.229)

		Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
(...) I can take that any number of ways. (...) The USA actively supports Israel, yes. So do others. You seem to be grinding an anti-US axe. Axe-grinders opinions are generally speaking, not to be trusted. They present only so much of the story as (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.229)

		Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
(...) Okay, so it's redundant. I just like the tongue-twister aspects, as Larry noted. :-) Bruce (22 years ago, 27-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.229)

		Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
(...) No - it would seem close and I understand you thinking that, but not really. I merely wish to establish one thing before moving on to the next. If Joe Blow walking down the street suddenly spotted the 2nd Amendment, what would be his (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.229)

		Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
(...) And that means said foreign policy must be analyzed in a vacuum? Nonsense. You are doing so because it suits your purpose and you explanation is just an excuse. (...) What? Not even "facts" this time? (...) You didn't answer it before, and you (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.229)

		Re: I point out that Scott meets everything with a new attack, and he proves me right yet again
(...) Hey, Ill submit to judgment by my peers. Maybe we should run a "Who is the most self-righteous" poll? ;-) Bruce (22 years ago, 27-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.229)

		Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
(...) Actually, that's how it started. I even pointed out that many of my answers were hardly serious, or not even necessarily my own viewpoint. I just thought Scott's santimonious self-righteousness need a bit of puncturing. (...) Tymbrimi. No "n". (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.229)

		Re: Idealism vs Realism?
(...) I'm more partial to Lakeesha than Shirly. (looking at ground and aimlessly kicking rocks)....ummmmm...no, I meant it in a bad way... :-O Bruce (22 years ago, 29-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.229)

		Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
(...) I specifically said I don't agree with Bush's unilateral outlook. I'm critical of your axe-grinding, slanted presentations, and sanctimonious self-righteousness, but not always with your actual positions. Bruce (22 years ago, 27-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.229)

		Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
(...) Notice how you never answer questions? That you just shift to a new attack? Iraq is not a destablizing force? Just say yes or no for once, and then append your explanations instead of this constant dodging. (...) Actually, yes, but not as (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.229)

		Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
(...) Hey, "He who mentions Hitler first has lost the argument". Go right ahead! :-) Scott, c'mon. Stop and look at your answer. Here I accuse you of grinding an axe against the United States, and all you do is try to sharpen it further. Who do you (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.229)

		Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
(...) What part of this is becoming a Monty Python routine didn't you understand? The automatic gainsaying of whatever the other person said isn't an argument. You offer no support for your statements, while you leave support for mine right there (I (...) (22 years ago, 27-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.229)

		Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
(...) Just ignore him. We both now he'll never concede anything. The guy has no shame. Bruce (22 years ago, 30-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.229)

		Re: Idealism vs Realism?
(...) Thomas Sowell appears regularly in the Orange County Register, a paper that doesn't even make a pretense at balance (like Sowell) and is wall-to-wall right wing. The only good thing about Sowell is that he enjoys labeling anyone he disagrees (...) (22 years ago, 28-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.229)

More: Next Page >>