 | | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) The problem isn't so much that it's illegal, but that we've accepted that it's the law's job to police morality. The danger of legalizing drugs isn't the legalization itself so much as the direction our society is already going with personal (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: left-leaning pantywaists in Britain (Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?)
|
|
(...) (URL) That's a pretty interesting discussion of lawful combatants versus al-Qaeda. Personally, I'd like for the determination of "lawfulness" of the combatants to be made by a judge or somesuch, because then it would be "official" and written (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) One might *suppose* the violence would settle, but we have no way of knowing that, much less calling that hypothetical "truth". How many Americans would you suppose could use a highly addictive drug such as cocaine "responsibly"? If cocaine (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: left-leaning pantywaists in Britain (Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?)
|
|
(...) I invite anyone better informed to comment on this, of course: It's my understanding that Walker has committed crimes different from those committed by the other detainees. Since Walker is a citizen, for instance, he is able to commit treason (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
It's easy to put the terrorists and drug lords out of business: just legalize the stuff (and in case that sounds too Libertarian, tax it and use the money for drug education and rehabilitation! <g>). Personally, I think Bush could have inserted (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
The White House Office of Drug Control Policy has started an ad campaign in which they are attempting a clever diversion through the logical equivalent of smoke and mirrors. Their assertion is that by consuming product (cocaine) from places like (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tanks at the Super Bowl
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) I don't think so. Simply, the money has to come from somewhere and The People aren't going to be willing to pump 75% of their produce into such security measures. In the worst-case scenario that you seem to be imagining, the (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tanks at the Super Bowl
|
|
(...) Uh...I know lots of folks who want it back. Heck, I want it back. This airport security is highly inconvenient. I'm hoping that technological means will be able to replace these procedural security measures in short order. It is more important (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: left-leaning pantywaists in Britain (Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?)
|
|
(...) And totally misses the point, though the first one about standards of justice stares it in the face and still misses it. The point is whether they are being treated better or worse than American citizens accused of similar crimes would be (I (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: State of Emergency? (Since 1933?)
|
|
I think this is one of those articles that is half truth, half B.S. -- probably written by someone with a very specific set of fears and a very specific agenda in mind. It has enough of the truth to look and feel like the truth at first blush, but I (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | left-leaning pantywaists in Britain (Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?)
|
|
(...) Lawrence You are nothing but a left leaning pantywaist! Below are two views on this issue which I read at the weekend: From the New York Times, Jan 29 ==+== Following the standards of the Geneva convention, a treaty signed by Washington and (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tanks at the Super Bowl
|
|
(...) Actually, the same people in charge of security at the Super Bowl are headed to the Olympics after the game. (...) You're assuming, of course that are government is not actually in a perpetual State of Emergency right? Because it could (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: State of Emergency? (Since 1933?)
|
|
(...) Well, if we have operated under some sort of State of Emergency since 1933, it could explain a lot about how so many things have gone wrong in our government. A lot of things in that article were over my head or I simply brushed it aside. What (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: State of Emergency? (Since 1933?)
|
|
(...) I have no information at all about this, and I did not read the whole article (?). But I did get suspicious when I read the parts about "return to the feudal system", "return to the League of Nations" and "worst economic condition after the (...) (23 years ago, 3-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tanks at the Super Bowl
|
|
(...) What, you never went see a football match between England and Germany? The population living near the stadium would be pleased to have the tanks... ;-) Now for real: I guess it is getting a bit out of hand. Sure, it is protection; but isn't (...) (23 years ago, 3-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Tanks at the Super Bowl
|
|
In addition to a list of typical fan items that are no longer allowed at the big game and the thousands of secret service agents waiting to search and pat down ticket holders, there are also tanks. Feeling safer already!! (23 years ago, 3-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | State of Emergency? (Since 1933?)
|
|
During one of my random searches for "conspiracy" fodder, I came across this; (URL) link may not work of course, the *wavy* symbol appears to be a superscript in the origional link but I'm a bit ignorant about linking) The document appears mostly (...) (23 years ago, 2-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Article quoting (was: Bad news for TRU)
|
|
(...) quoting what's relevant to the reply and quoting the whole post. ROSCO (23 years ago, 31-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Modern Libraries (was Re: Bad news for TRU)
|
|
(...) I liked RPI's online card catalog. The nicest part was you could log in remotely and use it. It also had an extremely nice search engine, where you could expand and shrink your search. I never tested it for how complete the coverage was, and I (...) (23 years ago, 31-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Hi Mike: This is just a follow up to our discussion so it doesn't seem like I was dogging you arbitrarily. I haven't yet found any "original" source for this quote (by which I mean the actual document or speech in which Brady made the comment) (...) (23 years ago, 31-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
