 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) It is even less fair (in a libertarian world) if a person who has more $$, can give their kids better access to healthcare and education. This makes it harder for poorer kids to succeed. We had a system like that in the UK before WW2. (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) He is a she. The text was published the day after the notes were found. I expect it was written before (it was in the Saturday supplement - not the main paper). The response of Guardian readers to the text is here: (URL) (...) I have said (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) The “grocery bill” comment was an attempt to trivialise the snooped material and focus on the snooping – not a hard argument. I am not proposing that “unnecessary sacrifices” should be made. The term is complete oxymoron in this context. The (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) I have made this point before: (URL) (...) Then perhaps you do not understand that the document is holding you hostage to reason and change. The gun debate is a good example of that. The fact remains that (as I understand it) GWB can erode (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Centuries old piece of paper" still pretty darn good
|
|
(...) I'm pretty sure they have, did the USA not have a good cricket system in the 1800's? Scott A (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | He doesn't have the humility to admit when he's wrong.
|
|
Larry, You are becoming a parody of yourself. The is typical of you, rather than answer the point you make a lot of noise and sling some mud. I shall ask you again. Give an example of were I have lied. I challenge you. Do it or apologise. If I have (...) (23 years ago, 15-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.
|
|
(...) Do you mean a *formal repudiation*? I would say it takes an effective change in attitude. You can wait forever for a formal declaration... presentely, Cuba seems not to be sponsoring terrorism - therefore, it is reasonable to take them "off (...) (23 years ago, 14-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.
|
|
(...) Huh... I did not explain myself properly: I wanted to confirm they were in Angola, not that what they were doing there was terrorism. It is true they were there as "advisors", even though some contingents DID enter in combat for the (...) (23 years ago, 14-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.
|
|
(...) The corollary of Lawrence's question, of course, is: "how many votes might be lost if they *aren't* on the list?" I noticed the very small amount of text re: Cuba, and none that implies a state sponsorship--it appears to be more a matter of (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) (snipped) (...) More freedom than whom? And we *also* love our own respective countries, we may even love *each other's* countries so much that we want to unite 'em all! :-) Anyway, we also have cons. And we have ID's. Is it so difficult to (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)
|
