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 / *21321 (-10)
  Re: Revisionists...
 
(...) That whole line of questioning was really impermissable and would not have happened at another time in history. You are talking about a man that lied about having an affair. Why? Because supposedly you can't be president if you inhale or like (...) (21 years ago, 18-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Revisionists...
 
(...) If you could take your confrontational partisan hat for just a second and re-read my last post you would see that I was actually criticising Republicans in congress who are currently playing politics as usual, by blocking attempts at an (...) (21 years ago, 18-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
 
(...) But, see -- I don't agree with him either. And the gun, operating as an equalizer, puts at least some political power back into the hands of the meek and peace-loving. Now, I am not advocating revolution -- we are yet far from that I hope (and (...) (21 years ago, 18-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
 
(...) Lots of things can kill you -- like automobiles for example. We keep dangerous things around because they are useful -- like automobiles for example. People can be taught to use dangerous yet useful things without harm to anyone, or at least (...) (21 years ago, 18-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
 
(...) <snip> (...) What it does do is reduce the number of fatalities/injuries from bullets. Dave K (21 years ago, 18-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: How to start a fire.
 
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) I think, at least for me, and I believe I've heard others describe it this way--like when Kennedy got shot, when the Apollo 1 caught fire, when the Challenger blew up, and (...) (21 years ago, 18-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: How to start a fire.
 
(...) No an unrelated wrong does not justify the other. However it is receiving undue attention when there are larger concerns to worry about. Much like I can not figure out why everyone made such a big deal about the space shuttle accident. Far (...) (21 years ago, 18-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: How to start a fire.
 
(...) So, an unrelated wrong justifies the other. Nonsense. Nor is the "wrong" proven, just your opinion. (...) Why? -->Bruce<-- (21 years ago, 18-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: How to start a fire.
 
(...) No I think he took it exactly as I intended. Along the lines of "why are people making such a fuss over this when there are far worse evils to be stopping first." Also you might want to read: (URL) Petrucelli (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
 
(...) Yes, but gun control does not reduce crime either. (...) If they could stop it through sustained military action, why didn't they? (...) Then the Government must have done something really stupid (...) Make a choice? (...) Yeah I would say (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

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