 | | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Hmmm, I find this a sticking point. I believe the right to travel by common conveyance is a right. If it were otherwise I'd be stuck at home unless I were willing to obtain whatever license is necessary to travel -- and then my right to travel (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: In the name of security and defense
|
|
(...) Okay, Dave, I think we got it after the 10th time you said it-- you think George Bush is a moron and a liar and should be removed. Time to move on, because now you are starting to sound like the moron with your constant repetitious whining. (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the name of security and defense
|
|
(...) Don't worry, Mr.Koudys. We've got your information. -J. Ashcroft (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the name of security and defense
|
|
(...) One of them will probably be me 'cause I won't keep quiet on the contempt I hold for Dubya and his moronic, boldfaced lieing actions. So add me to yer lists FBI dudes, and know that I stand for freedom of expression--your boss is an idiot who (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: His time has come...
|
|
Responding to my own posts, 'cause, well, I can... The differnce b/w the BBC website and the CNN website-- BBC News - Americas (URL) which the top stories are concerning the WMD investigation " US Senate opens Iraq weapons probe A Congressional (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the name of security and defense
|
|
(...) Boy, Dave, you just don't comprehend the subtleties of the American Justice System! There's no requirement that the detainee be "not American" in order to be held indefinitely without access to due process. All that's necessary is for the (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | In the name of security and defense
|
|
We can do whatever we want and offer no apologies... (URL) it's a great day for news...) " The report looks into the cases of 762 people who were living in the US illegally and were detained in the 11 months following the attacks. " and the part (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | His time has come...
|
|
(URL) US Congress has ordered an investigation into possible abuse of intelligence information about alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. " later.. " "To date, you have offered no explanation as to why you and your most senior advisers made (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Have a read of this: Now dissent is [immoral]: (URL) nation is now at war," said Peter Beinart, the editor of the liberal magazine New Republic. "And in such an environment, domestic political dissent is immoral without a prior statement of (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Having an entity in theory such as the ACLU is probably a Good Thing®, but the extreme, agenda-driving wackos currently running it make it a liability. As you say, any idiot can see that this case has absolutely nothing to do with religious (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) I'm very glad the ACLU is there to take the case. I must say, I hope they lose, and I presume they will since a driver's license is not a right, but it doesn't bother me in the slightest that they took the case. Without the ACLU, all we would (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote: <snip> (...) Sorry' it's (URL) a Canadian thing and all... sorry for any confusion Dave K (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Hey, we have a situation in Toronto where a 10 year old girl disappeared and the next day was found in pieces in a bag on Toronto Island--the police wanted to take DNA samples of all previously convicted pedophiles in the area and some (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) I'm afraid I let my personal feelings out a bit-- I'm still reeling from the news that the ACLU deciding to defend that Florida women who wants her driver's license photo ID taken with her veil on. We face more danger to our republic from our (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) I almost fell outta my chair! If it was a type-o it's really funny. If it's intended, it's still equally as funny! Perfectly said, John! Dave K (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Moooon River! "Hey Doc, you got the whole fist up there?" JOHN (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) I am not particularily concerned, because even if that worse-case scenario were to come about, the control wouldn't affect the WWW, where IMO the future of the exchange of information lies. Let's face it, any news source is biased whether they (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) No, no. I think John is on the right (alimentary) track here. Lawyers and enemas both try and get in the same place. :-) -->Bruce<-- (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Naw, that's no good. Enemas are supposed to provide at least *some* relief. Dave! (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote: <snip> (...) Ah, now we are starting to talk about the real enema here;-) JOHN (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
