 | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) Mmmmmm. Brevity being the soul of wit etc. 'namby-pamby PC touchy-feely' is a collection of adjectives I seldom encounter in relation to myself (I think if I was John I'd be offended ;-), and its not like the additional detail is helping very (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) I think Richard was talking about the "givens" that they have been held for up to 2 years without being charged, in the name of "security". Something that the administration would frown upon in the name of freedom. (...) Women, pregnant women, (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) hehe You are so predictable! (...) Try (URL) this> viewpoint! :-) JOHN (21 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) (snippage) (...) First, I think we all can agree that no nation is perfect, including the US. That said, I am reticent about commenting on Guantanamo because I don't believe that enough facts are about the interned are readily available. I (...) (21 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) De plane, boss, de plane! De fence, boss, de fence! Oh, sorry, defense. Ummmmmmmm, okay, maybe if I knew what I was supposed to be defending. Perhaps if I read on and not pick on a minor error... :-) (...) I find something ironic in that (...) (21 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
You know, I had kinda hoped that someone other than John might have spoken up in defence here. Perhaps that they have not is a very good sign. This post is longish, and I do apologise. I don't normally wax quite so lyrical, but it is a deep and (...) (21 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles)
|
|
(...) Perhaps our history has given us additional insights into the importance of freedom, and the lengths one might be prepared to go for it. Not to suggest our thinking is necessarily better, perhaps just a little different ;-) Richard Still (...) (21 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles)
|
|
(...) Prove it. (...) So, apparently, does "gentleman's" war, if it's a useful objective. ROSCO (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Er-hem. I know what you are trying to get at, I'm just trying to point out that your examples aren't exactly the best for doing that (and mostly just to give you are hard time for humor's sake). In your example above, all that's true, but it's (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) That's my amazing prose, of course. (...) I don't know that it's two steps back. I can accept that Luke, Matthew, John, and Mark are separate authors of the Gospels, just as I accept that, say, HP Lovecraft and August Derleth are separate (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
