 | | Re: Former Iraqi General
|
|
(...) That may be *one* of the reasons, but it's no more insidious than the NRA's big-business pro-gun lobby, which has much less to do with personal freedoms than it has to do with lining the pockets of the gun industry. That's not to say that the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Warriors or Fools? (was Re: Former Iraqi General)
|
|
(...) As if he weren't already a canonized thief, W has in a single stroke demonstrated that Clinton (anyone remember our most recently elected President?) was far from our least moral commander-in-chief. (...) Four of the six reps in my area voted (...) (22 years ago, 11-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Warriors or Fools? (was Re: Former Iraqi General)
|
|
Well, it's all just so many words now. From what I understand of it, our reps did well by us in the Bay Area, CA. What's everyone else's excuse? It is not generally thought that any war right now will be good for the economy. With low sales numbers (...) (22 years ago, 11-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Former Iraqi General
|
|
(...) Isn't that the real reason behind the "gun control is good" lobby? "Support gun control and give up your fundamental rights today." The Tyrants that actually believe what they do is for our own good, are the most dangerous of all. (I know, I (...) (22 years ago, 11-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the Green party...
|
|
(...) This is a real interesting question. It's crystal clear to me that the parties should have a lot of say over how their name gets used. On the other hand, perhaps the parties should not "own" positions on the ballot. So, let's say a Republican (...) (22 years ago, 11-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
