 | | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) I hope this was intentional understatement. If your child ends up in the hospital because of your type of punishment, your right to associate with small people should be stripped from you and you should be incarcerated in a psychiatric (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Well, you're just a silly goofball for thinking that in ridiculous way. What's an ENFP? I believe a lot of that "thinking out loud" goes on here, but many times it's clarified as such. I know that I sometimes forget to disclaim, and I wind up (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it aga
|
|
(...) Good luck! I did a Google search for that apocryphal Caesar quote and got 1180 hits! It's a well-established pious fraud, as firmly entrenched as the Sarah Brady's "completely disarmed" false citation or Dan Quayle's "Latin America" fictional (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Types of Personality (was: Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?)
|
|
(...) I was an ENFP every time I was tested until relatively recently. I took the test on the website and it turns out that I'm now an INFP. Can someone's personality change like that? Of course, it could be just my age showing--I'm becoming more (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Well, it all does hinge on how you'd mean "productively." I'd claim that the defenders at Ruby Ridge defended themselves productively. But, I think that even though I think their use of arms probably increased the casualty rate. No one would (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: red light cameras CAUSE accidents
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes: <snip> (...) Now there it is. Frank, run for office and I'm voting for you. We seem to be reacting to things instead of being proactive! Make sure people learn how to drive properly! Maybe we should (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) I was just talking with one of my friends (who happens to be a parent--no so with me) and he makes an astute observation-- Would this incident even be discussed if there was no 'art'? I mean, you take a kid, broken arms, cigarette burns, (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: red light cameras CAUSE accidents
|
|
(...) Not in the UK. We always have to maintain a safe stopping distance... which makes sense. As I understand it, the length of the yellow is some kind of (...) Normally the focus is on the "intergreen" period - this will be 5-7 seconds for a (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
|
|
(...) Israel is a victim. It is victim of its own history. However, none of that excuses its actions or what it suffers. It is a human rights abuser pure and simple. The USA actively supports it. (...) I'm not; democracy does not exist in Kuwait. (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) After a brief thought, and remembering from a class I took yesterday on the Meyers Briggs Type Indicator, I was just thinking of something that might be useful to add here about my debating style. As an ENFP, my way of working through problems (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: red light cameras CAUSE accidents
|
|
(...) Google it. You'll be inundated with a full range from "well-reasoned and documented" to "wacky paranoid government-out-to-get-us". But it's fairly obviously an issue, and there's good information out there on it. If the cameras are "causing" (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
|
|
(...) Of course the perception is fact. "Perception" as in there is the perception that Israel is the victim. You misconstrued my answer. (...) Who cares? I was merely pointing out that you were being inconsistent. Or you weren't making your real (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: red light cameras CAUSE accidents
|
|
(...) We have a similar issue with speed camera's in the UK: "The effect of the camera on driver behaviour can create new problems such as erratic braking and acceleration and distract drivers from the traffic flow." See: (URL) (...) Which is just (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it aga
|
|
(...) Was Nostradamus able to predict this? ;) Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: red light cameras CAUSE accidents
|
|
Hm, interesting. I have seen reports of fewer accidents, but I wonder how well you can trust them. The incentives sure are wrong, and certainly present a true risk of incorrect reaction (cutting short the yellow light time). Another interesting (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
I'm not sure why I continue debating here. It's hard to see all the sides of a person when the debate draws out like this. My initial reaction to this incident was based on a number of incidents in a very short time. In all likelihood I am (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: red light cameras CAUSE accidents
|
|
(...) See? I've always told you that you can't trust private corporations to run things! Seriously though, I'd be interested to hear more about the truncated yellows. If the cameras are "causing" accidents because people are pushing the existing (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it aga
|
|
have you realized this "Caesar" thing is a made-up quote that has been going around for many months? It's like the amusing but fake Nostradamus saying about the "village idiot." -Erik (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | red light cameras CAUSE accidents
|
|
(...) Don't get me started on these cameras... they're bad. It's not the rights violation claim (which is false, unless you report the car stolen because it actually was stolen, you're responsible for what people do with your property), it's the (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
|
|
(...) Fact. (...) Does Kuwait really have democracy? (...) This is utter hypocrisy. (...) Worse for Afghans or the USA? (...) There may well be. Why not tighten the screws on Musharraf, the Saudi’s or Sharron? These guys rely on support from the USA (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) If I broke into your home and stole your stereo, but you had no other evidence than your in-home video surveillance system, wouldn't you at least want me to be questioned? (...) Okay, what if I broke into your house, stole your stereo, and was (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Would guns truly have made a beneficial difference? Or would it have made the students seem like armed combatants who deserved whatever they got? I expect that it would depend on how the press chose to spin it, but at the very least it would (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
|
|
(...) I don't agree. Why not clean up your own neighbourhood first? Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
|
|
(...) This is news to me. Do you have a reference? Scott A (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
|
|
(...) There will be a UK parliamentary debate tomorrow. Blair will give MPs 3 hours to read his "dossier" on SH and then expect them to reach an opinion and debate it... crazy. Scott A (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Yes, we up here have, as of today anyway, 5 'official' parties-- Progressive Conservative Liberal New Democratic Party Bloc Quebecuois Alliance (a la Reform) And what's going to continue to happen up here in Canada is that the Liberals are (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) And I am in the unique position of agreeing wholeheartedly with Chris. There was a wee bit of a ruckus in LA a while back, and a granny watching the news footage of the looting and pillaging saw her grandson doing said mischief. She reported (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) OK, so did you just use those two as examples of the hundreds, or is that all you've got? I'm not trying to be trite about this, but I think you could find more than two civil rights abuses in a year on any given year since you've been alive. (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) The Medical Students in Florida who turned out to: - not be able to be connected in any way to anything nefarious - in fact, didn't run the toll booth as originally reported The Isamic leader arrested in Portland because his luggage showed (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) see also: (URL) article is about forking and revolutionary change within the open source context, but it applies to all systems... high barriers to entry imply more likeliehood of revolution rather than gradual change... and the duopoly of (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Good. Chris (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Wow, wouldn't *that* be interesting? (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) But in this case the girl has no physical wounds. This suggests to me that the other woman may not have felt the girl was in any danger. It seems to me that this case goes further than just a child battery charge and giving aid to a criminal. (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ashcroft named as top defendant in civil suit
|
|
Agents acting under Ashcroft, as Atty. general, are his responsibility. He's the man in charge -- he's the one that knows or is obligated to know what is going on under his command. -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ashcroft named as top defendant in civil suit
|
|
(...) statute: TITLE 42, CHAPTER 21, SUBCHAPTER I, Sec. 1983. Sec. 1983. - Civil action for deprivation of rights Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Yeah, really. It's hard to imagine how they could possibly know that the sister knows anything useful. I mean, do they have video footage of her seeing her sister do things? Not likely... Also, I believe in the right to remain silent -- to (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ashcroft named as top defendant in civil suit
|
|
(...) I didn't get from the article what the specific and direct role played by Ashcroft was. Is he only guilty for setting a cavalier tone within the federal law enforcement machine, or was it something more clear cut? Chris (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Ashcroft named as top defendant in civil suit
|
|
I found this interesting: (URL) see how far it gets. I expect he'll be removed from the suit, after all, can't have our government officials held personally liable for what they do, now can we? (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Really? Do you generally think that aiding criminals should have no penalty? There may be issues surrounding this that I haven't thought through, but on first blush, it doesn't seem like a bad general policy to me. I would certainly intervene (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Like what? Am I missing a bigger trend? (...) Um...what could be more damning than video footage? What on Earth _would_ you consider reasonable evidence? I haven't heard anything inappropriate about the handling of this case from the article (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) He didn't say your opinion was infelicitous. He said it was rooted in ignorance. (...) It's arguable that he was the most powerful, but even that said, there were many many awfully powerful forces aligned against him. He wasn't even supported (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Except for having our chief executive having been appointed by the Supreme Court. IOW, while every executive before has been elected (whether fairly or not) this one has actually _not_ been properly elected. With a minority (and no plurality) (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I'm not going to look back through all the notes you've written in response a note that I've written to find it, but I'm pretty sure that you responded that you would seek to change the law from within "the system" rather than breaking it, if (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) to choose to make your point. I followed the link and found this paragraph: "Police have been searching for Gorman Toogood since September 13, when a surveillance camera in a department store parking lot videotaped her apparently slapping and (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
|
|
(...) It would probablly benefit the Iraqi people a great deal. Personally I would have expected the United Nations to get rid of Sadam 2 years ago when he had about 12,000 Kurds (an ethnic miniority in Iraq) murdered in gas chambers. (...) Oh sure (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes: We MUST avoid letting paranoia destroy our freedom. (...) It's a little late to be thinking like that. Millions of dollars have been handed over for hightech security just for this purpose. Here in (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
I was just reading this news item: (URL) think it is extremely scary that a woman has been arrested on the sole evidence of a surveillance camera, and her sister is being charged with accessory to a crime. While the incident caught on tape might (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
|
|
(...) Let's be real clear that such a foreign policy is likely NOT in the interest of the people of the U.S. -- far from it. By contrast, it may very well be in the interest of people like Bush, Jr. and his type. But tell ya what, Scott -- you reign (...) (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
|
|
(...) If one has to start somewhere, Iraq is a pretty good place to start. Of course, one has to question Dubya's reasons (and complete lack of backing up his rhetoric with any thing like facts) for starting in the first place. (...) It's good for (...) (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
|
|
(...) Which is what I wrote. I also said the United Nations should be doing it. (...) Its as good as anyplace to start. I also said EVERY dictatorship should be eradicated. Did you even read the post? -Mike Petrucelli (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
|
|
(...) Why start with Iraq? Why try to overthrow democracy in Central America? Why support Musharraf in Pakistan? Why fund human rights abuses in Israel? Why make excuses for the Saudi's? Why back “democracy” in Kuwait? Why make a sponsor of (...) (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace
|
|
Maybe I read you wrong...I thought you were pointing out that someone had suggested liberation, while someone else shrugged it off and I hadn't heard anything of the sort... (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace
|
|
(...) need (...) can (...) Yeah, that's the problem. Wouldn't it be nice if our great grandchildren could call themselves citizens of Earth. It would be a costly endevor to say the least, but it could be done. Liberating the people and educating (...) (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace
|
|
(...) Sure it's a great idea, but are we really going to make life better for them? Are we going to replace the entire government and force industry to establish a suitable minimum wage? Are we going to force the new government to spread the wealth (...) (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) So an armed citizenry is not an implied threat? (...) You are completely missing the point. When (not if) the government becomes corrupt to the point that it is no longer a democracy, it is time for the people to invoke their second amendment (...) (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) That's a reasonable objection, but I think the essential point remains regardless of my incomplete and anecdotal listing, especially remembering the fact that previous debates here have been disembowelled by pointing out that "correlation (...) (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Iraq, Dictators, and Peace
|
|
Lets see the fastest way to achieve World Peace would be to nuke the entire planet. The world would be a peace. The best way to acheive World Peace would be for the United Nations to systematiclly eliminate any and all non-democratic governments and (...) (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: weasels are eating my flesh...
|
|
I forgot about Carnivore! (see how quickly important stuff is forgotten when you're so busy trying to live your life?) Didn't they change the name to Magic Lantern? Or something like that? To tone down the voracious sounding "Carnivore"? (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | weasels are eating my flesh...
|
|
(...) With the technology (similar to that of) Carnivore, it could have happened already, web crawling spiders may well have already taken down the names of everyone who ever posted to this newsgroup as potential subversives. How's that for a cheery (...) (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | American soldiers in Canada...
|
|
I don't have a source available; I was wondering if anyone else has heard/read about American military forces joining with Canadian to "protect" the Northern coasts against terrorist infiltration. The idea worrys me. I've actually considered getting (...) (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) "here" == lugnet.off-topic.debate not merely this particular thread. Our republic is broken, at least to some extent, I gave you 3 examples of why, out of many many many more possible ones. That's completely on topic to where this thread is (...) (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I was just thinking, this last bit is the answer to the claim that we are stick on an outdated piece of paper. If the 2nd really is not appropriate as originally intended, then lets change it. The Constitution tells us how to change it. If a (...) (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) to (...) But it's typical to assume that the factors which multiple study venues (in this case) fail to have in common are most likely trivial in their causative power when compared to a single factor that is common across the study. If a (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Sign me up for that! Darn solicitors--thank you but I already have one more credit card than I need (have a grande total of 1) I don't need any more newspaper subscriptions, I don't need my carpet cleaned, I don't need your magazine! Stop (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) <snip> Gerrymandering? Brought up in this thread? Like h-e-double hockey sticks they have, Larry... Do a search in this *entire* thread and show me, up until this post of yours, when (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) We put the Dot.Coms up against the wall! Telephone solicitors are next! Comrade Bruce Glorious Democratic Republic of Socialistic Libertarian Greens Where Everyone is Equal Except for Those of Us Who Drive Really Big German Cars and have T10 (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Larry is absolutely right on this. The system is set up to make it difficult for marginal parties to grow. Essentially, if you wish to gain any power, you need to subvert one of the existing parties through infilteration. The question is (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Actually, German Americans were interred also, here's one quick link: (URL) here's one about Italian internment: (URL) the way, these were the 1st links Google showed for +german +internment and +italian +internment I haven't read these sites (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> (...) Holy Hannah! I better start doing these things by e-mail instead of thru the web interface--sooo many type-o's in my last reply. My bad. Sorry 'bout that. I'll endeavour to proofread (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Well, it was a minor but--semantics--irrelevant to the discussion at hand. An *opinion*, a voice, a discourse is *protected* by the 1st. If I don't like your opinion--my tough cookies, just as if you don't like mine--your tough cookies. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) It was the fact that they did not have guns that gave them power. If they had guns, some guy like bush would have called them "terrorists". (...) Is the Crucible not about the government/capitalist induced hysteria which led to McCarthy being (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) One political science course? Well then, yes. (...) See, this is the part that just seems incredibly myopic if not just plain ignorant to anyone with any sense of world history and of U.S. history in particular. Y'know, those guys in the (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!)
|
|
(...) Sorry, I did not mean to imply life is perfect for these groups - it is not anywhere near it. However, it has improved over the last 25 years in my view. (...) Yes. (...) I agree. I read this powerful quote in a Guardian letter today: "Beware (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Who can say? These guys are all ultimately poll-driven centrists -- it's just that the Bushes are also pointedly oil-obsessed, war-gods. (...) Hmmm, this is all very debatable. The lynching isn't widespread or performed without fear of (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) First, it's your *elected* gov't. Due to screwups that people are trying to sweep under the carpet, and others are trying to *not* sweep under the carpet... is a wee bit of a fiasco. If every Florida citizen petitioned to have a revote, (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) You're very good at the off-handed put-down aren't you--'doesn't have an informed opinion'? I think I'm just as informed as you. I took my poli-sci courses in university (tho a long time ago to be sure) and I read the articles that people post (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Are you saying that the Democrats would have made the same mistakes as the Republicans over the past 12 months and before? I'm yet to be convinced of that. Bush is governing by paranoia, I doubt AG would have done the same. (...) That is an (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I'll tell you what... if you want to explain a process, explain how it is that the US has two parties in power which are more similar than they are different, and which do everything they can to ensure that no other party or set of ideas can (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I fear you are misrepresenting my views. I can't think of any law that I view as "immoral", but I can list a few that I view as being "unjust" to me. However, I share this island with a lot of other people, and I am polite enough to respect (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Okay, I need to remember this: the reason Koudys doesn't have an informed opinion about U.S. issues is because he isn't an interested party. David, I would kindly ask you to stop discussing what you don't know and doesn't matter to you anyway. (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I think the "being necessary to the security of a free state" part covers that. [...] (...) As long as democratic institutions are still working then it isn't time for a revolution. But when the right to vote gets taken away (e.g. an election (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) You're right. One should try and change things from within the system. This is why those who don't agree with the current government and truly care about our nation are trying to work within the system. The purpose of enabling the free (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) It should be noted that the 2nd amendment itself in no way addresses that its purpose is for the overthrow of the government or as a hedge against tyranny. (...) The "well-regulated militia" that opted to go its own way was the Confederate (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) It depends what you mean by "fight". If it means oppose through force of arms, then you are correct. Obviously. If you mean only an armed population can rid themselves of a totalitarian regime, then I think you are wrong. Look at the (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I don't have a lot to contribute to this debate, but this idea is invariably introduced at some point, and it needs careful examination. The problem with the statistic you've cited is that it is *very* difficult to establish a causative (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) The United States is a democratic republic. Fine, no problem--never said it wasn't--I said the way to get things changed is thru democracy, the process in which the people *vote*. (...) "Government is not reason and it is not eloquence. It is (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) It's a Democratic Republic. There is a difference. (...) This is such a lame statement it barely merits response, I just wanted to call it to your attention. It's just as bad as: "America: love it or leave it." Too lame. (...) This is a fairly (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Like the Taliban controlled Afganistan for example. Never mind that the whole point of the MILITARY and POLICE carring guns openly was to make sure that the citizens were unarmed and in fear for their lives. There is a reason that the 3 (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) And in a fledging new democratic country, I can see why you would need that kind of ammendment. However, 1776 was a very long time ago. It's 2002. Your country has grown up into democracy and found out that--well looky that--it works without (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Quoteth Dave (...) and (...) and so many other locations--which part in my posting makes you think that *I* think the 2nd was written less than 20 years ago. If there's someone being misrepresented in this thread, I'm your guy. (...) And (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
Let me say it again, but more concisely: Only an armed population can fight back against a totalitarian regime. The 2nd amendment is meant to allow the population to be armed for just this reason. Yes, if democracy failed and a totalitarian regime (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
David: What William has stated is more or less the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment, but it also goes back to feudal times. Freemen bear arms -- it's a right and a responsibility. Read "The Federalist Papers". If you disagree, fine. Just stop (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) If the US gov't were to break down, laws are irrelevant, and we're back to... who said it, Lock, Hobbes? can't remember polisci 101 (such a long time ago)...'natural law' or, as I like to think of it, 'He who has the biggest stick, rules' The (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) :) (...) Show me. Show me how people dying needlessly is a good thing. Show me how a revolution would make the United States of America better right now. Show me how not working within the system that you have set up down there, a system, I (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Huh? Guns are not drugs. Drugs are only one aspect to crime. And crime has nothing to do with freedom. Do you think banning guns will make criminals turn in their weapons? No way. There will always be some guns in the country, and there's (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) The US Constitution is designed to ensure a reasonably fair government that doesn't have too much power over the people. But if that were to break down, the 2nd Amendment is there to provide the people a last- ditch method of regaining the (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Nowhere in my postings did I *ever* imply that. I will reiterate--it is *not* because of the guns the police officers have, but because it's the law, that I obey the law. You are putting the emphasis on the wrong part of the equation. I don't (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) "The rules have changed. True power is held by the person who possesses the largest bookshelf, not gun cabinet or wallet." (...) Have you been watching Fox News again? ;) The average American is seven times more likely to be murdered than (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> (...) <snip> *cough* POA *cough* Baah--stupid acronyms! AFAIC, and IMHO, who needs 'em! Just causes lots of snafu's! ;) Dave K (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Yup. A very valuable one. (...) I'm guessing you're being sarcastic, but if not, then we agree. The pinnacle of civilization _is_ the understanding the the power (all of it...the ultimate power of military projection as well as the power of (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
