 | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Why did the US support Saddam? Why, because he was better than that bloodthirsty, nasty Shi'i Khomeini, that's why! (If you can't detect sarcasm there, you need your brain checked.) We figured that since Saddam was "secular" and willing to (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I think that I think Dave is almost right. It still won't be fair. (If I understand what is meant by fair.) Larry has more marketable skills than I do and I have more marketable skills than the lady who's changing the trash can behind me. Very (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) And why do you choose to twist what *I* say? You misquoted and distorted me, without a cite, then had the audacity to say you were "protecting my privacy" by not citing me. That's rich. I use the word belligerent to describe a participant in a (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Circumspection was urged in this idealised "then" you're talking about too--especially as regards air travel, motor vehicles, and even medicine. And no mistake, you're absolutely right, we made a lot of problems (although I'd argue the balance (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) a (...) I mean that business liability as found by a court is virtually always disproportionate with the damages done. They are often fined way too much, and people make jokes about it for years (McDonalds coffee comes to mind), and they are (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
