home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27 / NN_1992_27.iso / spool / alt / flame / 14798 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Text File  |  1992-11-15  |  1.7 KB  |  40 lines
  1. Newsgroups: alt.flame
  2. Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.claremont.edu!jarthur.claremont.edu!weverett
  3. From: weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett)
  4. Subject: Re: Why Bush? (was: Why Clinton)
  5. Message-ID: <1992Nov16.032458.14341@muddcs.claremont.edu>
  6. Sender: news@muddcs.claremont.edu (The News System)
  7. Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
  8. References: <1992Nov14.010627.6121@muddcs.claremont.edu> <1417@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>
  9. Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 03:24:58 GMT
  10. Lines: 28
  11.  
  12. In article <1417@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
  13. >weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett) writes:
  14. >: In article <1409@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
  15. >: >vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
  16.  
  17. >
  18. >The original post was wrong, Willy, only if one clings to a
  19. >curiously mule-headed literal-mindedness.  The convo, if memory
  20. >serves, went something like this:
  21. >
  22. >Interviewer: Surely you recognize that atheists are citizens
  23. >             of this country?
  24. >
  25. >             Our Only President: No, I'm not sure they should be
  26. >             considered citzens...
  27. >
  28. >             Now, if there's a way to interpret that which doesn't
  29. >             involve the President of the United States questioning
  30. >             the right to citizenship based on religious belief, I
  31.  
  32.     You really need to learn how to pay attention. No, I mean this. You
  33. really should see someone about this problem.
  34.     Now that you've shown you can remember the supposed 'proof'. Let's see
  35. if you can remember that that wasn't the point. If you can extend you memory
  36. all the way back to the original post, you'll see that this 'proof' does not
  37. support the orinal statement, which is what I was arguing with.
  38.  
  39. William Everett
  40.