 | | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) You zany understator! Ignoring for a moment the question of the polling machines (ie, modern, well-maintained machines in largely republican districts and archaic, run-down machines in largely democratic districts) I don't have the info in (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
(...) It all boils down to how many lives would have been saved/lost, and what value you put on them. If OBL comes back to annoy us, that will have to be put in the equation too. As will any moderate Muslim backlash. How many Afghan lives is 1 (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) Whoa, calm your jets there Chris--my whole post was rather in a humourous vein and was light hearted... I know your issues for your fractured voting system. I seem to recall that after the Florida fiasco, that someone went back and recounted, (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) How so? There was an election, the results were certified, challenged in court, and allowed to let stand. You may not agree with all the various court decisions made by various courts(1) but it's a bit of a stretch to say he was appointed, ne? (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) Depends how he handles Desert Storm II; the first propaganda exercise didn't win a re-election for Dad (though the rest of his cabinet was reinstated in 2000, of course). Here's a puzzle for the Constitutionally-aware among us: Since W was (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
