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 / *13886 (-20)
  Re: We are letting the terrorists win
 
(...) Probably should be. See this article which makes the point that if anything, trains/buses are MORE vulnerable since you don't just have terminals and key points to protect, you have miles and miles and miles of track (or road) and there is a (...) (23 years ago, 13-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Gotta love Oracle...
 
(...) Can you elaborate a bit on government assistance for, say, Microsoft, then? I really don't see them. Or would you say Microsoft has no monopoly on PC operating systems? They start to fear Linux these days, but only due to *regulations*, not (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
 
(...) Scott, I agree with Larry here. Yes, I'm prepared to make sacrifices. I'm not prepared to make unnecessary sacrifices, and your grocery bill example falls squarely in that category (unless, as Larry says, there's probable cause) ROSCO (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: We are letting the terrorists win
 
(...) being (...) Interesting a lot of people are nervous (understandably) about flying in planes, but no-ones mentioned other mass-transit (buses, trains) which could be used with fair efficiency (even if maybe not quite so spectacular) for similar (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
 
(...) Me too. What a great post. You and I perhaps differ about whether we can ameliorate terrorism by the course we're on now of taking the war to them and disassembling them and their regimes or not, but we agree 100% about the importance of our (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Cuba is a terrorist state (was Re: Any truth in this one - Cuba as a terrostist state.
 
(...) I dunno about Larry's references, but I can confirm this. According to a cuban veteran I spoke to while in Cuba, he was in Angola in the early eighties. A number of people here who have had business there (Angola, not Cuba) by then reported (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Gotta love Oracle...
 
(...) But doesn't it take some sensible level of safety (as opposed to absolute safety) to ensure the value of the "life" part of your rights definition? (...) Don't get me wrong: As long as X is NOT a basic human right, I am OK with X being only (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
 
(...) I strongly disagree. It is precisely this kind of knee-jerk, poorly thought out logic that leads us down the path of the destruction of our beloved republic. Protecting our civil rights, enumerated and unemurated in the U.S. Constitution and (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Violence created by presence of guns? (was: Gotta love Oracle...)
 
(...) Violent crime involving robberies and non-domestic assaults are usually committed by people who are not likely to pick up and move to another state where concealed handguns are not allowed just so they can commit crime. You'd be very hard (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
 
(...) Wow. That's something. He's even dead wrong on details; at least two of the hijackers *did* leave suicide notes, in the form of wills. Argue all you like about the justness of the US response and whether that's consistent with our message, but (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
 
(...) I do not have a cite for the bill numebr, but it is summarized here: (URL)Do you seriously want every bill that comes up that vaguely claims to be (...) Of course not, however, this bill is "terrorism" specific. (...) In actuality, the Money (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: More on Palestine
 
Hello Larry, (...) I am anxiously awaiting your reaction to my historical analysis on this issue ... will you tell me, too, that there is no room for different interpretations? If you feel you discussed this issue enough, you could also point me to (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Violence created by presence of guns? (was: Gotta love Oracle...)
 
Let me play a bit of advocatis diabolis here ... (...) So, you would admit that there is a problem with SOMETHING in the US mindset? But you are sure it has nothing to do with arms? (...) ... and at the same time fuel the violent crimes in places (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: More on Palestine
 
(...) Which doesn't get you off the hook ;-) Here is my definition: "The enforcement of political goals through violence against unconcerned people is terrorism". Of course, with this definition, a violent attack targeting concerned people would (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: More on Airport security.
 
I see a severe problem with his terms for armed passengers. He said a passenger should have a CCW permit. Great for states that easily allow *lawful citizens* to get them, but not so great for the many states that make it near impossible for *lawful (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: "Centuries old piece of paper" still pretty darn good
 
(...) OK, why did this stutter? Web interface was fixed to prevent char for char dups, I thought. Sorry about that peeps. (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Not Cricket (was Re: "Centuries old piece of paper" still pretty darn good
 
(...) Not ever even playing you... now that *in itself* proves our superiority. BTW you set FUT wrong... the very IDEA of Cricket is laughable so this is FUT .fun ++Lar (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
 
  The value of environmental assets (was Re: not sure what to call this)
 
(...) I think it's both actually: (...) Yes, this is exactly the problem. It was solved in Antarctica by dividing up among nations that were close or had 'discovered' it and this has worked mainly because they also all agreed to leave the natural (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: "Centuries old piece of paper" still pretty darn good
 
(...) I'm certainly not *happy* to see it, but the alternatives are less just, in the specific instance and in the long term effects on society. (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: "Centuries old piece of paper" still pretty darn good
 
(...) I'm certainly not *happy* to see it, but the alternatives are less just, in the specific instance and in the long term effects on society. (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

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