|
|
 | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) Your response is a tired joke in this case -- I think that Shrub's lack of ability in most areas of his past life show he is not trustworthy. What members of his cabinet do in his name shows me he is not trustworthy (Ashcroft re: Patriot Act). (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) Of course. Guantánamo is still Cuba ;-) Pedro (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) Unless you're an Arab, or have an Arab-sounding name, or have been to an Arabic nation recently, or know someone who fits any of the above criteria. Then you can be held indefinitely as an "enemy combatant," and no presumption of innocence (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) You could just ask me two different times... 8^) Anyway, you've given a nice summary of the problem of Revelation as evidence. Well said. (...) To let you (and myself) somewhat off the hook--part of my hypothetical situation was that Jesus (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) Last time I checked one was *presumed* innocent until proven guilty in this country. JOHN (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
