To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / *19206 (-10)
  Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
 
(...) That would be redundant. Dave! (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
 
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: <snips for comedic effect> (...) That would be redundant. JOHN (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: We love our guns!!-- was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
 
(...) Thanks for clearing that up. Your assertion in this case is that the cameras themselves are not causative? Rather they are merely tools and it's the people (governments in this case) that use them improperly which cause the problem? So why ban (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: We love our guns!!-- was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
 
(...) Refutation--the camera itself didn't cause the accident--the camera didn't change the timing of the lights. Saying something like there's causality between the camera and the accidents is like saying thre's causality between people waking up (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
 
(...) Hey, thanks for the links. Unfortunately, the problem still remains that we cannot conclude that crime has risen *because* guns were banned, especially since the guns in the Dunblane incident were legally owned. Unless you propose arming (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
 
(...) gun (...) Written August 11, 1998 (URL) January 6, 2003 (URL) course the actual statistics no longer appear to be available. Go figure. -Mike Petrucelli (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: We love our guns!!-- was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
 
(...) you think that if more restrictions were put on ownership perhaps >less would be stolen? (...) I think you are agreeing with me? (...) It's a gun's ability to kill that makes ownership so attractive to many. Scott A (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: We love our guns!!-- was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
 
(...) <snip> Is there stats on this? Without any veil of agenda, I'd like to know how many guns in the black market today come from off shore. Curious. Dave K (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: We love our guns!!-- was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
 
(...) You're not very good at staying on thread, are you? Nor are you very good at paying attention. Go dig up the red light threads and reread them before you blather further. But assuming you won't, or won't be able to analyse what was said, for (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: We love our guns!!-- was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
 
(...) Please give up on the notion that gun supply can somehow be controlled. There will *always* be guns, whether they are stolen from my house or produced in a third world nation. Anyway, the whole issue will become moot when technology gives us (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR