 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) True-- although mainly I think it would be evidence provided twofold-- I.E. "Here are before and after shots of this island, here's a videotape of us blowing it up, and here it is now. Go to the island and verify yourself if you don't believe (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) I said nothing about guns in specific. Nor does this address what I said: you can give up a freedom for security. Okay, this is what you have done: you can't carry a gun, but you feel more secure because of it. You'd rather have the security (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I'd question that part. Not too many years earlier a good chunk of the US populace believed we were being invaded by Mars. Even today, credulous lout believe that the moon landings were faked, so if we'd simply shown a film of our nuclear (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) I said it was a caricature in the message you replied to(!) :) (...) I would say "free", but try to talk me round if you want! (...) So you think I'm less free as I don't/can't have a gun, even though I would feel less free if I did have one? (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) No, the idea was that they'd invite other nations to send representatives to witness the event-- not that we couldn't have merely recorded the event anyway. At least such was my understanding. I don't remember if it was explicitly said, or (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
