|
|
 | | Re: Welcome Worn Out
|
| (...) However it should be pointed out that we are neither a guest nor a neighbor. We seem to be taking on more of the role of parent (not a role I wanted the US to take on but by golly, once the war was started, there was no avoiding it), and a (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: "France is not a Western Country anymore"
|
| (...) Capitalist governments, *by definition*, don't just "happen" to get into power, and the process of assigning dollar values is not random, capricious, unappealable, or unchanging. Given those clarifications... yes, in my view, it is OK for such (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) The preamble has no force in law, it is used only as support for interpretting the intent of the legislators. This is similar to how the titles of particular statutes are handled. And if you think the word "defense" means invading a non-nuke (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community)
|
| (...) //...// (...) Excuse me, sir! I agree to most of the things you say, but what is this mixing of politics and religion? Do you really think that being left-winged is equal to being an atheist or what? /Tore A Christian, anti-liberal and (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: "France is not a Western Country anymore"
|
| (...) Why would sarcasm be a reason *not* to take a comment seriously? (...) But it's okay simply declare that all rights are property rights and assign a dollar value for all transgressions, just because a capitalist government* happens to get into (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Language
|
| Hi, I've recently seen some swearing in the posts here. I'd rather not, so please try to remain cool. thanks. -Suz Suzanne Rich Green LUGNET Admin (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) How about right in the preamble, "provide for the common defense", or how about "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity". Bush has his justifications, even if you don't trust in them. You want to talk about (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) If the justification is there it is implicit, not explicit. Pedro (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) his >motivations for those actions or not. (...) "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) Could you show me where in the federal Constitution the invasion of foreign territories is explicitly laid out as part of the duties of the U.S. President? I must have missed that day in civics class... Pathetic republican apologists unite! -- (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
