|
|
 | | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
| (...) As for the threat of terror (imminent or otherwise), this is what I genuinely believe: I have no doubt that if SH had biological, chemical or nuclear WMDs at his disposal, he eventually would have made them available to terrorists such as OBL (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
| (...) Arnold claims in one breath that he does not deny all the stories about grabbing and immediately continues that "this is not (him)." Well, if he admits he did it, then it is him. What is this fairy tale that it isn't. He wants to imply that (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
| (...) Let it, and let him address each one. I have a feeling that after tomorrow, the issue will become mute (sic), because most of the allegations are beyond the statute of limitations (so at best they would get an apologize which he has already (...) (21 years ago, 6-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
| (...) A cute answer (heck, you got me to laugh with you!), but it doesn't deal with the substance of the claims. I think we are up to 15 accusers, a number that will no doubt grow. (...) Of course the timing is suspect. Then again, sometimes it (...) (21 years ago, 6-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
| Go Mike, go!!! A very reasonable and very american approach to the issues raised by John Neal. This is what it should all be about, all of us defending each other's right to liberty in the manner we choose to express it. I bow low to your greater (...) (21 years ago, 6-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
|
