 | | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes: I've lost my train of thought on this bit though. (...) Absolutely - I've been trying to find some spare time to get in on this one for exactly the same reason. I've tried to raise 'is land property' at (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
|
|
(...) The problem isn't that we are an open society that is vulnerable to terrorism, it is that there are those who choose to take advantage of that openess-- using freedom as a cowardly way of expressing their hatred and intolerance. (...) I don't (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Anyhow, who cares about tax liability in the US? [Re: Idiots, Part Deux]
|
|
(...) The "bubble" taught us that much. :( Anyhow, who cares about tax liability in the US? See: Enron 'bribed tax officials' (URL) report said Enron profited from 12 large tax deals from 1995 to 2001 that saved the corporation more than $2bn." If (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
|
|
(...) I expect part of the problem is that 911 has shown that the USA is both vulnerable and is part of a larger global community with real people in it. Your fellow countrymen have woken up to the fact that whilst they may feel that the USA stands (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) Apologies Frank, I was actually enjoying reading this particular thread, though it be waaay over my head. I was looking for Locke, Kant, and Hobbes to chime into the thread, but alas... You are probably right about the other--the lines have (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Just when I keep on thinking that I'd have nothing else to rant about...
|
|
(...) When they vote against my interests, I'm happy to have them stay home if they like. I'd even arrange to have non-stop wrestle-mania to encourage them. :-) (...) They don't want lazy democrats worked up, black or otherwise. It'll give (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
|
|
(...) I don't even understand the question. Wasn't Clinton the best Republican president we ever had? The "Left" is not democrat. If you're going to go off into idiot-land, at least ask the intelligent questions. Bush is not capable of clever (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
|
|
(...) We bombed Bagdad with 500 cruise missles-- call it what you will. (...) We bombed Bagdad with 500 cruise missles-- would you call that "peaceful"? (...) Hmmm, We bombed Bagdad with 500 cruise missles.... (...) If you are referring to the (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
|
|
(...) Hey, I may be a self-serving hypocrite, but I'm no partisan! You ask a great question, which I've heard in a few other venues, and which bears a good examination. I'll offer what insights I can. 1. Immediacy: Milosovic was at the time of the (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: <snip> (...) Hmmm, let me search my faulty recollection--was there a war against Iraq in '98? Hmmm... not so much. Did the Democrats get some sort of peaceful worked out solution to the problem? Was (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
