To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / Search Results: worlds smallest political quiz
 Results 581 – 600 of about 1300.
Search took 0.01 CPU seconds. 

Messages:  Full | Brief | Compact
Sort:  Prefer Newer | Prefer Older | Best Match

  Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
 
(...) Well, you could choose to call my opinion 'trolling', however, I know I'm not. (...) And in each and every instance you quoted, I looked at the entire quote, and found that I read it differntly than you. I pointed out it should be interpreted, (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.402)

  Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
 
David: I am trying hard to respect your words, but I get the funny idea that this is just one long troll for you. Either that or you have some kind of blinders on over this particular subject. Those quotes were just the tip of the iceberg -- there (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.402)

  Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
 
(...) Ah, the light shines... Yes, evidence is a sticky issue. And we did use to have other standards -- the manner in which we arrive at a hopefully objective approximation of the "truth" is ever changing, however slowly. Sometimes the change is (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.402)

  For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
 
(...) Yeah, really! What I find annoying is the refusal of some people to do their own homework (i.e ANY reading at all). I think the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is actually fairly clear, although at this precise moment in time it may be wished (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.402)

  Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
 
(...) Really, read Stephanson. A large part of it *was* dumb luck, combined with lasseiz-faire attitudes (more out of a realization that the center could not control the edges than anything else) and a cultural touchpoint with the world's preeminent (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

worlds
(score: 0.402)

  Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
 
(...) **Alert** I used 'your' many times in the following post--they are not directed at Chris at all--just wrapping up, I hope, in one complete posting a bunch of different points made in this thread. If you could read the words, "you" or "your" as (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.402)

  Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
 
(...) Would guns truly have made a beneficial difference? Or would it have made the students seem like armed combatants who deserved whatever they got? I expect that it would depend on how the press chose to spin it, but at the very least it would (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.402)

  Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
 
(...) I will be more inclined to agree that China has continuously been an extremely important civilization, rather than Egypt (which is now only a part of a much wider culture). But yes, you have a point - ultimately, those who came before laid the (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

worlds
(score: 0.402)

  Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
 
(...) What else would you expect? :-) (...) Well, I meant *in* history, not for all time. The US is the greatest nation to have ever existed, even though we've only been around for 200odd years. Heck, Americans have driven SUVs on the moon-- we've (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

worlds
(score: 0.402)

  Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
 
(...) He didn't say your opinion was infelicitous. He said it was rooted in ignorance. (...) It's arguable that he was the most powerful, but even that said, there were many many awfully powerful forces aligned against him. He wasn't even supported (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.402)

  Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
 
(...) Actually, German Americans were interred also, here's one quick link: (URL) here's one about Italian internment: (URL) the way, these were the 1st links Google showed for +german +internment and +italian +internment I haven't read these sites (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.402)

  Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
 
(...) I'll tell you what... if you want to explain a process, explain how it is that the US has two parties in power which are more similar than they are different, and which do everything they can to ensure that no other party or set of ideas can (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.402)

  Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
 
(...) You're right. One should try and change things from within the system. This is why those who don't agree with the current government and truly care about our nation are trying to work within the system. The purpose of enabling the free (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.402)

  LUGNET at risk
 
(...) If his mischief were confined to off-topic.debate I would readily agree. But it is not: (URL) stirred up trouble in a vile and malicious way and maliciously redirected his bile to the wrong newsgroup, repeatedly, despite several people's (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

smallest
(score: 0.402)

  Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
 
(...) Quoteth Dave K (quoting dictionary): goon: a thug hired to commit acts of violence or intimidation (usually with a gun) The last time the NRA won some sort of whatever, there was numerous newsclips of Heston holding up a gun, saying 'outta my (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.402)

  Prey for Salivation!
 
(URL) what you like about the Libertarian party, but they won't endorse spitters! Kidding aside, I applaud their censure of this boor as a means of demonstrating that The Party of Principle does not endorse personal assault as a means of political (...) (22 years ago, 16-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.401)

  Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
 
(...) I am only responding to this one part because after reading Larry's reply it occurred to me that this part is intended as a kind of snare -- frankly, a rather lame one at that. I am tolerant of others' views unconditionally -- that is to say (...) (22 years ago, 15-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.401)

  Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
 
(...) I don't like to see John stating his own opinions as facts either, esp. when much of what he has to say is contrary to the facts as understood and accepted by the rest of us. The Constitution trumps all other laws. Even the preamble is not (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.401)

  Re: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!)
 
(...) That's not entirely accurate, but even if it was, it's not a good metric. The average standard of living in the US is significantly higher than, say, China. I don't tend to agree with Larry on political ideals, but as a goverment moves closer (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.401)

  Re: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!)
 
(...) Sorry, in what way is redistribution "fair"? (...) This is the same old argument and the refutation is simple. NOT everyone has to do good or be charitable. Merely enough people to take care of the problem. We have empirical evidence that is (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.401)

More:  Next Page >>


©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR