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 / *13956 (-20)
  Re: eBay's Auction for America
 
Scott, you have been asked, twice, to keep this topic in .debate yet you repeatedly redirect it back to lego.direct. How rude. The lego.direct newsgroup is for direct communication, not prolonged discussion. You are in violation of the charter for (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
 
  Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
 
(...) It does not sound all that great when you describe it like that? (...) I agree with some of what you say, but at times I think we get too hung up on property rights. (...) Thanks again for your comments. I think we *all* have good things to (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
 
(...) Well almost any kind of minor legal hassle can have the appearance of erroding my rights -- including a bill to stop terrorist activities. The real test comes in time, tested in the courts, and sometimes even retested in the courts. Sometimes (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  From Vietnam to Jesse Helms (Re: More on Palestine)
 
(...) I agree, Dan's tarring everyone with a big sticky brush. His general comments are interesting though. I read this in the Observer yesterday about Jesse Helms's apparent Amendment to Protect Servicemen From International Criminal Court: ==+== (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: More on Palestine
 
(...) I have spoken to a Vietnam Vet; last night in fact; I have a special word for him; I call him Dad. And you know what? Dad *never* killed defenseless women and children in Vietnam. I take extreme umbrage with your statement. That was a horrible (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
 
(...) What I mean is that rather than debate these issues, we get an argument that goes like this: "It's in the constitution, so we can't change it". I find that "ridiculous". Here is an example: (URL) Gore declared that "the Constitution is a (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
 
(...) That's a ridiculous statement. And it is so poorly supported by any meaningful argument as to be pointless to debate the matter. (...) No, that would be false. GWB might wish to errode my rights, but that would be what is so great about our (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  He still doesn't have the humility to admit when he's wrong.
 
Larry, that was not an apology - that was more insults. More mud. More of your low level of debate. I shall ask you again. Give an example of were I have lied. I challenge you. Do it, or apologise. Put up, or shut up. All I am asking is that you (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: More on Palestine
 
(...) Me too. My impression of Turkey post WW I was more of a country struggling with internal issues and being kicked around by others, than a country that was a kicker. But this isn't my area of knowledge (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Reading comprehension problems.
 
(...) Satisfied or not, that's all the apology you get. (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: A N T H R A X - they aren't making this stuff in caves in Afghanistan
 
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: (citing the Guardian) (...) Thanks for the cite. Does anyone know if this stuff keeps for 10 years in powder form? Bacteria are quite resilient but 10 years is an aw'fly long time. (of course that (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: More on Palestine
 
(...) ---> while Turkey was getting ready to move into Africa (was Spain (...) I really wondered where you get this info from. Selçuk (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  A N T H R A X - they aren't making this stuff in caves in Afghanistan
 
(...) I'm not sure we do. Yesterday's Observer: "Iraq 'behind US anthrax outbreaks'" (URL) anthrax, on its own, isn't so difficult,' one senior US intelligence source said. 'But it only begins to become effective as a biological weapon if they can (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
 
(...) I would agree that *public* companies should be totally open (like thats ever gonna happen), but I see no reason why *private* companies should not be allowed total privacy. I see them as similar to families. ROSCO (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: More on Airport security.
 
(...) I see that as almost inevitable. Maybe not in the next 20 years, maybe not in the next 50, but I think it will happen eventually. ROSCO (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: More on Airport security.
 
(...) passengers (...) No, in this case it is necessary because terrorists are threatening to use the planes as bombs. Otherwise the extra security would've been put in place before Sep 11. (...) But that's what's being proposed! (...) I disagree. (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: More on Airport security.
 
(...) If you buy goods from air users you will pay. If you pay tax you will pay for the policing? (...) I think you should act reasonably. (...) Some say they do already (tax). (...) Some do view air travel as "essential". I view it as a bore, but (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
 
(...) So we should give in? Or should we keep on using our failing methods? (...) I could not resist. (...) I don't follow? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: More on Airport security.
 
(...) The enhanced security is only necessary BECAUSE they fly. Security would be enhanced even better if they didn't fly, but banning air traffic as a whole seems a bit too far fetched ... (...) We are not talking an extra service. We are talking (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: More on Airport security.
 
(...) Yes, keeping it to traffic. I don't know how this works in the US, but here in Germany, and most of Europe ... ... people pay for the trafic-safe state of their cars themselves ... people pay for their liability insurance themselves ... (...) (23 years ago, 15-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