 | | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) It might be useful to distinguish individually-ascribed worth from market-ascribed worth. That $1000 bond may be "worth" $1500 to Buyer A, but if you go on the market and say "I'm selling this $1000 bond for $1500," you'll find out what the (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) Yes, though a contract may be in place. I would tend to think that there is an implicit contract entered when the child is conceived. (...) Ok, point conceded. I've lost my train of thought on this bit though. Unfortunately this debate which I (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) And I wasn't disagreeing with that. (I might actually, in the end, but I haven't found fault with his assertion yet.) I was merely speaking to the contract's nature, as Frank pointed out. (...) Except in another note, I asked about the ability (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) East to say, but harder to justify. (...) None of that explains why Belgium and Germany share France's outlook. Nor does it explain why the French navy is currently on exercise with your own in the "Eastern Mediterranean". (...) I'm sure I've (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) Quite interesting. He is plain wrong on some issues, but overall he raises some key points. The most pertinent is this: "Well, if there is a U.N. resolution backing the war in Iraq, and I don't doubt there will be, the average Briton is not (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Are you crazy? Anything which does not support the war is "irrelevant" [see France, Nato, the UN, public opinion, etc]. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the "Hawks" are interested in rational thought! Scott A (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) Ya. I for one would LOVE to see some real investigative reporting into the theory that France is blocking things because they have lots and lots of business deals in the hopper that would go forward if sanctions are eventually lifted but which (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
|
|
(...) War? Troops sent in to fight? Was Clinton building up the forces, daring Saddam to 'slip up even just a little bit'? (...) I would if I could, but there's a tinpot dictator in charge of that country that, so the rumours go, is more of a (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What about the first?
|
|
After Turkey's invocation of NATO's article 4, one other article cries loudly that there can be no NATO support of US intervention in Iraq: (URL) 1 The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
|
|
(...) But then again, they can argue they were "balancing things up" after giving the Israelis the Bomb. Because they did that... just to spite the US! What the French were not expecting was Eisenhower's (?) change of ideas on the matter (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
