 | | Re: Having it both ways W.R.T. DPRK
|
|
Followup to yesterday: "The two faces of Rumsfeld" (URL) director of a company which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea 2002: declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change (...) (21 years ago, 10-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Having it both ways W.R.T. DPRK
|
|
Why should the U.S. engage in these activities in the first place? The fact that people placed highly in goverment are probably reaping some kind of on/offshore monitary benefit only makes it worse. I am also non-patisan on the issue -- Clinton (...) (21 years ago, 10-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Having it both ways W.R.T. DPRK
|
|
The agreed framework ((URL) was a bad idea when the Clinton administration put it forth, and it continued to be a bad idea all along. How bad an idea indeed, we know now, since the DPRK was apparently violating it all along. But under the terms of (...) (21 years ago, 10-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What's worse--being a moron or being corrupt?
|
|
(...) I am sorry to make you a scapegoat Scott, but this is one nit I have to pick. Irregardless is not a word, it is a double negative. What you actually mean is 'regardless' which means 'without regard to'. If 'irregardless' was a word it would (...) (21 years ago, 10-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What's worse--being a moron or being corrupt?
|
|
(...) It is pretty clear why that aid had to go then. The "man monkey" is no moron. ;) Scott A (...) (21 years ago, 9-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What's worse--being a moron or being corrupt?
|
|
I am going to say that being called corrupt is worse. If one is a moron that usually represents a natural born deficiency, someone who is a moron is not simply unlearned, or unwise, but possessing a level of retardation. To say someone is corrupt (...) (21 years ago, 9-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What's worse--being a moron or being corrupt?
|
|
(...) I would have said that Dubya's policies are moronic. However, what the aide actually said was, "George Bush.... what a moron!" Thus, in order to stay true to the actual quotation and the resulting political tizzy, I used the original, not my (...) (21 years ago, 9-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What's worse--being a moron or being corrupt?
|
|
(...) Was the term not "moronic"? Scott A (...) (21 years ago, 9-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Rumsfeld, Nukes, North Korea and $$$$
|
|
I read this in "shock and awe": “Donald Rumsfeld, the US secretary of defense, was on the board of technology giant ABB when it won a deal to supply North Korea with two nuclear power plants.” (URL) quite as bad his selling WOMD to Iraq... but (...) (21 years ago, 9-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Thunderbirds are Go!
|
|
(URL) can almost make out the strings... =) -- Hop-Frog (21 years ago, 9-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What's worse--being a moron or being corrupt?
|
|
(...) I would say being labeled a moron is far better than being labeled corrupt. (...) Why stop with Dubya? We should get rid of the whole lot and reinstate the constitution as our basis of government. (You know where everyone follows the same (...) (21 years ago, 9-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | A Change
|
|
.A Change ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ (Not so much a` BIG change, but a `SMALL improvement!) !An open letter to the Lugnet community and it’s creators: I'm proposing that a change take place in our lovely Lugnet community. Not a radical revolution, but simply just a (...) (21 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.people, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.curators, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.announce)
|
| |
| | What's worse--being a moron or being corrupt?
|
|
So a Canadian Parliamentary aide called Dubya a 'moron' a while back, and that sent everyone into a tizzy. Now the Mayor of London says Dubya's corrupt: (URL) would you rather be--labeled as a moron or labeled corrupt? I, like the mayor of London, (...) (21 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Canada's Senate Woes--R: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
So I did a little googling (what a wonderful thing that is...) Found this little article: (URL) basically lays out what our senate is today, and what certain reformers want, i.e. EEE Senate--elected being part of that. but, as the author also (...) (21 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) The Party that has the most seats in the house are 'in power', and the party in Power has the PM--PM's are voted on by the party. The senate in Canada, on the other hand, are appointees. When a seat becomes vacant, whichever PM is in power (...) (21 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
!!! (...) I thought that in a parlimentary type government like in Canada and many European countries, the Prime Minister and the parliment are from the same party (unless no one has a majority and then there is a coalition) Lester (21 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) What do those scenarios have to do with what actually happen? If you are implying that the gang will forcibly drive customers away, then that is a straw man argument (thar ya go, John) since the Christian Right is saying that they are only (...) (21 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) I rather liked it. You'll note the Pastor had no problems with guns in Wal-Mart; it was the woman’s lingerie that he felt did not belong in a family store. ;) Scott A (...) (21 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) <nodding, a la Wayne> Good one. JOHN (21 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
Here's a tangent on this topic-- (URL) which one of our more esteemed ward councillors in the Big Smoke is in a wee bit of a tizzy against an advert. Seems that "Nellie Pedro, a Toronto District School Board trustee" doesn't like a commercial made (...) (21 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) Well, if it isn't coercion, I'd like it defined. How is this different from a gang-like group walking into "Mom-n-Pop Hair Salon" and telling them "Pay up or you'll start losing money?" Well, that's a little extreme and called extortion, so (...) (21 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) Except, perhaps, a Democrat President? Cheers Richie Dulin (21 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What the...?!
|
|
The New Yorker, The Talk of theTown, DEPT. OF CONNECTIONS "THE CONTRACTORS" (URL) there is a new and demonstrable connection, but it is not the kind that the Bush Administration had in mind. In fact, it is more likely to fuel the speculations of (...) (21 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Newsbits: The Lies and Profits Continue
|
|
"Halliburton has wider Iraq role" (URL) Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who asked for more details on the Halliburton contract, said, "It now appears ... that the contract with Halliburton -- a company with close ties to the administration -- can (...) (21 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) How much it's different? Not sure I follow. Burning books, well do you mean me burning my books? If I do so safely and in a place permitted to do so (my property) that's free speech, I'm making a statement about the books. Or do you mean jack (...) (21 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: WMD: Yes or No?
|
|
(...) The 'smoking gun', as it were... The truck was cleaned with bleach so they can't find any traces of bio weapons. Let's find the flaw in that logic-- "Hey Iraqi Official 1--The Americans are going to invade--we want to show that we weren't (...) (21 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) Why post stupid things like that? You leave the impression that that actually occured. JOHN (21 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: WMD: Yes or No?
|
|
(...) Patience is a virtue: (URL) (21 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) I don't think so. I attacked the quotation. *He* transferred my attack and applied to the author himself (whom I don't even know). That wasn't my point. (...) I think the coined phrase is "fictitious";-) (...) Of course. That is the way it (...) (21 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) Sorry Dave, but that's not the point. Doesn't matter *who* they were just so long as they're Wal*Mart customers. Wal*Mart SHOULD be responding to their customer's demands. It's just that (and I agree here) those demands are stupid. Should (...) (21 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) Funny. Another "John Neal" moment for debate I guess. -- Hop-Frog (21 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) You're misusing the term "straw man" as, ironically, a straw man argument. Non-applicable, a non-sequitor, too obscure, suspect TV "philosophy", perhaps. A straw man argument: The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually (...) (21 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) These aren't activist Christians--these are pseudo-Christians who haven't got a clue, and only want to enforce their morals on everyone else. Christian activists are the ones who were marching in Toronto a few months back protesting against (...) (21 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) Pressuring companies into compliance via this method is *not* the market in action. Market in action is not buying said product. There's a huge difference. What if Jewish people start pressuring all grocery stores into only selling 'kosher' (...) (21 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) <lots of snipping> Ya know, there is a big thing going on in San Diego this weekend- Billy Graham (and others) is coming to town at the "Q" stadium. (No, I'm not going if your curious.) Anyhow, about a mile North of the stadium (and 1-1/2 from (...) (21 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
A search for "Wal*Mart" & "Christians" led me to this: Like Jesus in the Temple, Furious Pastor Flips Display Tables and Destroys an Entire Wal-Mart (URL) may offend some readers] Scott A (...) (21 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) Straw man-- I was referring to the cited quotation. I can't speak about the show since I have never actually seen it, but I don't rule out that he is indeed devoid of substance and meaning, which is entirely possible. Unlike the "Christian" (...) (21 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) LOL, Why do I find it funny that activist Christians threaten to boycott Wal-Mart if they do not obey them. Then, when they cave to that pressure, Dave is unhappy and in turn threatens the exact same type of boycott, meanwhile criticizing the (...) (21 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) Well, it's a quotation taken from a television producer/writer that has one of the best shows on television--a show that actually discusses issues of political, moral, and ethical issues--I guess that makes him basically devoid of substance (...) (21 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) A example of an intolerant generalization that is devoid of substance and meaning. (...) Prove? Cites? More BS generalizations. (...) Yes, and Christians certainly don't believe that. The Gospel revealed by Jesus is that God loves everyone (...) (21 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
