To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / *21031 (-20)
  Digression on Johnson (was Re: Should we be concerned?)
 
[The Real Hal Moore]¬ Interview of Lt. General Harold G. Moore by William F. Jasper (URL) recount the bitter anger and frustration that you and others in the military felt concerning the decisions in Washington to allow the Communist forces to have (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Should we be concerned?
 
<snip> (...) Very good quote. Essentially saying let someone else think and act for me. There have got to be better ways to achieve anti-terrorism goals than promoting fear and division. I wonder how events would have played out post 9/11 had a less (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Should we be concerned?
 
(...) Yes, but Clinton remembered one thing, "It's the economy, stupid." People knew that Nixon was a mean man, not an honest man. But they felt he could run the country. Clinton could run the country: not one of your complaints about him precludes (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Should we be concerned?
 
(...) Article 9 and 10 of the Bill of Rights. Would they license a horse? Don't they license motorcycles and bikes? Aren't the roads called "rights of way." We all have the right to travel -- this was recognized as early as Magna Carta in the common (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Should we be concerned?
 
(...) Shrub has been AWOL and everything about his "military" career was protected and sanctified by Daddy Shrub himself -- give it a rest. It's all well covered up and with the appropriate gloss of "spin", just like his drug and alcohol record. So, (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Should we be concerned?
 
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) Totally on the same page with John--driving's a priviledge, not a right, and getting a drivers license, as it stands today in many areas, is getting your picture taken such that when and if (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Should we be concerned?
 
(...) Please cite in the Constitution this "right". (...) Bus, train, taxi, airplane, unicycle, bicycle, tricycle, Segway; take your pick. (...) How about theft? (...) Yet another conspiracy? (...) Are you kidding me??? You are asking the state to (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Should we be concerned?
 
Man if I don’t log on for just one day some of these posts just get buried by others. (...) I just had to address this statement. It actually reminded me of the way I felt about Clinton during his presidency. In 1992 when he was first elected I (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Should we be concerned?
 
(...) Allow me to correct myself: a driver's license is specifically enumerated as not a right in California. Other states may be different, though I don't specically know of any that vary from that. The right to travel is in no way prohibited. You (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  It's a Holiday in Cambodia!
 
Weapons Of Mass Disappearance The war in Iraq was based largely on intelligence about banned arms that still haven't been found. Was America's spy craft wrong - or manipulated? (URL) Where are Iraq’s WMDs? The message was plain: Saddam’s weapons of (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: In the name of security and defense
 
(...) Yeah, because his ineffective attempt to deal with Saddam involved the mere launching of 100s of cruise missiles at Iraq. But how can you even make that assertion? What if he had taken bold action after the first attack on the WTC? His limp (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: In the name of security and defense
 
(...) "The truth"??? Are you alleging that the Left has a corner on the truth? Your arguments are all about half truths through character assassination, conspiratorial innuendo, and dishonesty. That you quote the Bible merely adds to the irony which (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: In the name of security and defense
 
(...) There is no point of comparison between oral sex between consenting adults and mass murder/war crime on the scale that occurred in Iraq. A Slick Willy did not cost us even one American life. I grieve for the unjustified soldiers lost in Iraq (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: In the name of security and defense
 
(...) It gets to the point when I almost hesitate to click on the BBC link... in fear of what other atrocity may surface regarding the 'most powerful man in the world' directing the 'most powerful nation in the world'. But there are those who would (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Your Rights, Your Money...
 
(...) Well, is true that a welfare society does seem to have this very issue--simgle moms having more kids to get more money, and that should be dealt with... Here's a thought-- Better education. But I'm just throwing off the top of my head here... (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: In the name of security and defense
 
(...) The part I always appreciate is the "empty attacks" which, thus far, are totally un-refuted and are still standing out there waiting for *any* type of response. Shooting the messenger by calling him a 'whining moron' and equating the (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Your Rights, Your Money...
 
(...) This is a debate forum-- perhaps try your luck in .fun, or .tiredliberalpropoganda... JOHN (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Your Rights, Your Money...
 
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote: snip (...) That statement is patently false! It comes from the rich's own pocket! Get your facts straight, you socialist in sheep's clothing. (...) Tax Credit = $$$ give away. Explain to me why I (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Your Rights, Your Money...
 
(...) Sheesh! -- Hop-Frog (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: In the name of security and defense
 
(...) I STRONGLY disagree. Post on, Koudys!!! Let the truth set us free and shut up the Willfully Ignorant, Ugly American. -- Hop-Frog (a Rainbow-Coloured Beautiful American, Chaotic and Free!) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR