 | | 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)
|
