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 / *24311 (-100)
  Re: The Real Waste Re: More waste (was Re: More Orwell, for everyone!
 
(...) The latter. (...) Entry should be based on evidence of previous educational attainment (e.g. school results). Good school kids normally make good UG students. Basically, nobody who meets the entrance standards should be rejected because they (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Real Waste Re: More waste (was Re: More Orwell, for everyone!
 
(...) Good students have desire and ability. Good courses should only take students with both qualities... … to do anything else is a waste of everyone’s time. (...) Why so? Or are you too lazy to explain yourself? The song is rather dated now, but (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: The Real Waste (lyrics from Fashion News)
 
(...) Yes, but simply reprinting the counter-clockwise spin is a rather poor way of "challenging" things. (...) Sorry about that. Scott pointed out the site, not me, and I didn't see the pop-ups because Mozilla filters them out. You should try it. (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: The Real Waste (lyrics from Fashion News)
 
(...) An interesting choice. And what you might say with irony I say with conviction (1). These lyrics would be a fine theme. I'd say Scott is trying to change some people's 'facts', because their 'facts' just aren't. As the song points out - you (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: More waste
 
(...) A very fine idea (the reducing the overall tax burden part), if there's no sufficiently constructive use to which to put the money. A very popular call too - don't waste my money on other people or the future, give it back to me. Obviously we (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: The Real Waste Re: More waste (was Re: More Orwell, for everyone!
 
(...) I don't know. I fear the room for draconian restrictions placed on "ability to learn" based on who gets to decide. Do you just mean it should be free to all period or that there should be entrance requirements and expulsion criteria? I'd hate (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Real Waste Re: More waste (was Re: More Orwell, for everyone!
 
(...) Because that doesn't account for the desire to learn. If you truly want to learn, you'll find a way to pay. Your way rewards intelligent lazy people (you?). I'd say there's a balance somewhere, but you haven't got it right either. And since (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) "We are the Borg. Lower your shields and prepare to be assimilated. Resistance is futile." One person's 'perversion'(1) is another person's societal norm. What makes something a perversion? A (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  The Real Waste Re: More waste (was Re: More Orwell, for everyone!
 
(...) One has to (URL) the Balance Right>: today's Undergrad's are tomorrow's tax payers. The better the education they get today, the more they can earn (and contribute back) in the future. Why not base education on ability to learn not ability to (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  More waste (was Re: More Orwell, for everyone!
 
(...) (snipped the rest away) Precisely. I think you mean the taxpayer, in other words. Bollocks. If you found A$300M that's not needed, how about this for an idea... give it BACK to the taxpayers you taxed in the first place instead of spending it (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Educational value of travel (was: More Orwell, for everyone!)
 
(...) A year abroad is already a mandatory part of many courses in EU countries. Even where it is not, the (URL) makes it easy. A year studying overseas forces students to be more independent and take ownership of their own learning (rather than (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  US State Department: Global terror attacks are on the rise
 
(...) It appear's Bush's antics as part of the "War on Terror" have conincided with a (URL) in international terrorism! Scott A (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Xenophobia
 
(...) …and I forgot you seldom feel the need to substantiate your opinions & tend to delete points you don't want to answer. ;) Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Educational value of travel (was: More Orwell, for everyone!)
 
(...) You know, I'm not immediately opposed to the idea of including a two year stint abroad in every undergraduate education. I don't know about an around-world-tour, but two years in another nation -- half study and half peace corps like service (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: More Orwell, for everyone!
 
(...) Oh I don't know. I'd put it somewhere around the $300m mark. I never cease to be amazed at how much money we spend on advertising programmes to alert the general public as to how nice and clever the government thinks it is, particularly with (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) Thank you for that clarification. I meant that I choose lines that I believe are absolutely drawn out. My point was that I am not the only one who adheres to drawn lines. We all do. (...) Eh, when the perspective is from the Creator of the (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Xenophobia
 
(...) I forgot whom I engaged. Nevermind. JOHN (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) You keep asserting that the nuclear family is the foundation of society. I guess I thought you meant that the nuclear family is the foundation of society. Silly me. (...) It would improve it! (...) I think you left out some of the respect due. (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) I think you just said that it's sick because it's sick. Is that really what you meant? (...) I have, over and over -- across the years, claimed that the rights of the majority and the minority must both be set up so that they do not conflict (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) I think France has the most hols in the EU(?). I only get 6 weeks + 10 days public holiday. ;) Scott A (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) But you're wrote "You draw your lines, I draw mine." That is an explicit statement of self-imposed limitations. Is that your intent? Or do you really mean "You draw your lines, I adhere to absolute lines drawn out for me by millennia-old (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) Oh, silly me. Perhaps you could adopt one of these emoticons for when you're in cynical mode. >:-> Cynical; Devil-like; Really devilish remark; Has a crew cut; Leering >;-> Cynical wink; Irony; Winky and devil combined (a very lewd remark was (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Xenophobia
 
(...) My son is already not Aryan Pure, so it matters not to me. The school he goes to is heavily Chinese and Korean, anyway, so I figure if he learned those languages along with Spanish it would just make him that more adaptable. -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) For the most part, yes, but at the same time, less so than we thought. For a very few species, I start to suspect that David Brin is right about "uplift" being just around the corner. I'm kind of amazed that scientists have dragged their heels (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Xenophobia
 
(...) Actually, I hadn’t noticed this “struggle”. Care to share your source? (...) Are these the same Islamic "extremists" that Reagan supported? (...) ...and there lies the error in your argument. Many of the Muslims in the EU come here for freedom (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) I was being cynical. I see too many parents working very long hours (to the detriment of their health, marriage & family) so that they may buy items they don’t need as they fear not conforming. Twenty years ago a “family day out” would be a (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) And....? (...) How do you know? How do you claim to understand all of the social ramifications of such a shift? You can't even cite any historical references because such a proposition is unprecedented. Forgive me if I pass on your little (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Xenophobia
 
(...) Well, in case you hadn't noticed, their is a titanic struggle for the heart and soul of Islam, and the extremists appear to be gaining the upper hand, and they aren't too keen on the ideas of freedom and democracy. (...) Doubtful. Maybe the (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) I realize this and I believe in an absolute morality, but he doesn't. I am trying to appeal to his sensibilities, not mine (which I know he flatly rejects). I am arguing on his turf, as it were. (...) I assume you are talking about when I (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) I practically worshipped Gary Larson, but I digress;-) Okay, I admit that some animals can learn some things. Perhaps this debate should have begun at the topic of sentiency. Can we not agree that, while being mammels, we are vastly different (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) Yup, that's always been a good one. :-) But as if on cue to back me up: (URL) "Research Finds Dogs Understand Language" I didn't need research to have figured this out. My dog brings the right toy when I ask for it (tug-of-war, squeeky, ball), (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) This, too, is moral relativism, which you have alternatively embraced and reviled in earlier posts. As far as incest goes, you have (URL) previously acknowledged> that incestuous relationships are wrong because they conflict with cultural (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) I hope you don't truly believe that, because it's just plain wrong. Society is based on extending the relationships learned early on in the family environment (whatever that may be) to encompass people in the neighborhood, and then beyond that (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Xenophobia
 
(...) Your comment appears a little xenophobic. Even if you are right, what is the big deal about immigrants being Muslims? Anyhow, in 40 years time your descendants’ 1st language will be Spanish. ;) Scott A (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) No one thing!!! People often pull this "sky is falling" gimick about some trivial little detail claiming that a change will cause the collapse of society. If we granted universal marriage rights to homosexuals -- as we would if we were a (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) A mixture of greed and fear. Scott A (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) The line that I draw is at victimization. That's not arbitrary. If no one is being victimized then what they're doing is OK. I'm not offended by either incest or bestiality aside from the difficulties in obtaining informed consent. Why should (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: More Orwell, for everyone!
 
(...) There's also the small issue that it costs a lot of money to do that. Who is going to pay for it? (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) The Talking Dog A guy walks into a bar with a dog under his arm, puts the dog on the bar and announces that the dog can talk and that he has $100 he's willing to bet anyone who says he can't. The bartender quickly takes the bet and the owner (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  More Orwell, for everyone!
 
(...) Mmmmm. I have long advocated that 1984 should be required reading in the last year of high school education. And the older I get, the louder I hear it echoed in the world around me. Maybe that's me, maybe its the world. The other thing I have (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) Judging by stats today? The foundation is just as likely to be Divorce as it is to be Marriage. 50% goes both ways, bub. (...) The foundation of what? {Your} idea of what the US should be? Ignoring the fact that it is a 20C construct? (...) (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) That really depends on the animal - the smarter they are the more they can move away from "instinct". My bird can put words, individuals, and activities together without me attempting to teach him in the slightest. The dog can do the same, if (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) Take a look around. I think you are denying the obvious. What would you assert the foundation of our society is? (...) (snip) (...) I didn't say it was the norm, just the foundation. (...) I doubt it. Cultures with strong, nuclear families (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) Could it be because latin cultures are fundamentally matriarchal? Pedro (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) Really? Do tell... (...) I don't exactly know what reality you live in anymore, John (if I ever did), but I've got news for you - the Nuclear Family is a 20th C construct, and it is falling by the wayside. It is anything BUT the norm anymore. (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) Then we disagree. (...) Yes, but neither are you "all for" sex either, unless you are willing to advocate beastiality, incest, etc. You draw your lines, I draw mine. There is no difference except in degree. (...) Of course. Do you have another (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) I don't think so. (...) You're "all for" sex with only one partner, of only one certain sex, in only certain ways, under only certain circumstances. Right? (...) To start, I'm assuming that you agree with American Heritage in that the nuclear (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) I'm surrounded by Abrahmics. I'm not sure if I have enough perspective to verify what you're saying. My experiences with Indians (fairly extensive across fifteen years in university and IT) do lead me to believe that they (at least the ones (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: (snipping) (...) It is a misnomer to characterize the Judeo-Christian tradition as antisexual. We are all for sex, but within the context of marriage. Sex outside of marriage erodes at the institution (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) This is a really good question, and I hadn't thought about it in those terms. I guess I would have to note, as you suggest, that attempts to reinvent sexuality (or the expression thereof) are met with vigorous resistence, often by the very (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Hallowed be his name, part III
 
(...) Yikes! He'd have to be Ronald Wilson Schuler the 3rd, then--both my father and I are first-born sons, too! Dave! (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Hallowed be his name, part III
 
(...) Ronald Wilson Schuler has a nice ring to it... Chris (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) What is the link you see (or want to see) between time-in-culture and publicity? Maybe the fact that religion keeps reinventing itself is specifically why it stays newsworthy while human sexuality is mostly static. (And note that when we do (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Question for the sane out there
 
(...) I'll say that. When "one's will" is the pursuit of basic human rights and every other avenue of approach has been reasonably exploited to no avail. It's not like they just want extra chocolates or something. (...) The right to worship is a (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Hallowed be his name, part III
 
(...) No harm done--it gave me quite a chuckle, actually! (...) Nice! Dave! (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Hallowed be his name, part III
 
(...) My bad. I think I need to adjust the settings on my sarcasm filter. (Sorry for the misinterpretation!) The whole putting Reagan on the dollar reminds me of the push to add him to Mt. Rushmore back when he left office. (...) And I keep telling (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Hallowed be his name, part III
 
(...) I'm curious as to why you thought that this assertion, of all of them, was serious! Aren't you more worried about the mandatory renaming of firstborn sons? (...) You're related to our current president? That's so cool! Dave! (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Hallowed be his name, part III
 
(...) This is absolutely the most absurd statement I have ever read here on LUGNET! Your memory must be as bad as Ollie North's. I can still vividly remember the outrage that I felt watching North's congressional testimony about Iran/Contra. His (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  The Torturers Among Us
 
Count on a professional newspaper columnist to articulate so clearly what I have been saying for the past three years. The Bush Administration has abused the 9/11 tragedy as an excuse to engage in a deplorable deterioration of human rights. The (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Question for the sane out there
 
(...) Of course it was a joke silly. In the same way as Dave!'s assertion was a joke. But in Lar's special way, its also a jab. And I happenned to be feeling a bit anti-establishment, defender of the oppressed at the time. Its all this reading about (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Still MORE thoughtful policy from Rhea County Tennessee
 
(...) They keep making monkeys outta themselves over the religion issue. :-) -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 8-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Still MORE thoughtful policy from Rhea County Tennessee
 
(...) As Bruce pointed out, the famous "Scopes Monkey Trial" originated here, and now (URL) another case> has arisen from Rhea County's particular education policies. (20 years ago, 8-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Shallow be his name, part III
 
(...) I heard Bush intends to rename himself "(URL) Bonzo>". (...) Did Bonzo not prevent much of those files from being (URL) published>? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Hallowed be his name, part III
 
(...) His corpse isn't even cold yet, and already (URL) opportunists are circling.> Other initiatives include an Amendment to the Constitution enshrining Reagan as The Greatest Human of All Time, the placing of statues in His image in every public (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Consummate sense? I think not!
 
(...) Richard is a nice guy; I'm sure he did no mean that. Personally, I don’t draw a huge distinction between the “deliberate killing of innocent people” and the indiscriminate/disproportionate use of force which results in the “killing of innocent (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) Oops! Good point. My sincere apologies also to any people whom I've libeled with false allegations of sanity. 8^) Dave! (20 years ago, 7-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) For the sake of literary snobbery, I did a little looking over the weekend, and here are two examples I came up with: (URL) From Book One, chapter 4:> Winston thought for a moment, then pulled the speakwrite towards him and began dictating in (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the sane out there
 
(...) It was a clever, logical twist on the assertion of Dave! (a joke) (...) Well, from your statement below, that's not saying much. (...) ??? Except those who aren't? (...) "Consummate sense"? Explain and cite please. Are you saying that the (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the sane out there
 
(...) And your insistence on the distinction implies that there is some doubt as to Dave!'s sanity. I am prepared to vouch Dave!'s sanity. (Mwa ha ha ha. MWA HA Ha ha.) Then again, I think pretty much everyone is sane. Even the folks John habitually (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) Nor, for that matter, does it necessarily follow that sanity is possessed by Dave! (that was a tough one to get to come out correctly(1) in under 90 seconds of thought) 1 - ... having the phrase or sentence end in Dave! (20 years ago, 7-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) I resent the fact that you're painting with such a broad brush. Just because I agree with you on this issue, doesn't make me sane. :-) Chris (20 years ago, 7-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) Hmm. In the UK {all} the parties produce “manifestos” for General Elections; they can be bought at bigger newsagents for ~£5 (US$8-$10). The elected party is expected to stick to their manifesto (esp. if there is no change of leader). When the (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) I spent some time there a few decades ago. It's nice to know the old western PA colloquial still exists. Brings back memories... Enjoy, Don (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) Whoa--I recognize that accent! Are you from the Pittsburgh area? Dave! (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) Oh, I don't know, maybe just that I need to get out and see more movies so as I know what yins all are talkin' about. (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) I hate to have to tell you this, but JMS was actually a few decades behind his time! Orwell pegged all of that stuff way back in 1948! I'm not a B5 fan, so I can't comment on the particulars of that series, but it sounds like JMS was offering (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) <snip> (...) I was thinking that season 2 thru 4 of Bab 5, specifically regarding President Clarke's assention to power and the corruption thereof, with all the 'homeguard', the 'poli-speak', and the 'if you're not with us, you're against us' (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) Whoa, a blast from the past. I loved Hemo! (...) What's your point-- that blood isn't formed by a bunch of tiny people named Nemo? Next you'll probably assert that prostates can't write articles! JOHN (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) Well, what does it say to you, exactly? Franks' interview in Cigar Afficianado is now a matter of public record, so it's fair game for my question. I've never seen (URL) The Siege>, so I can't comment on the relevance of that piece of fiction (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) Sorry, I just found it interesting that google returned this link: (URL) the second page of my search for terrorist movie references. Apparently that's where you get all your material. It's got your question, your cigar mag reference, (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) Oh, come now! I think everyone knows I was being facetious. If anyone feels disenfranchised by my jest, please let me know, and I'll make amends. Dave! (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) Now that's a bit uncalled for. If someone is an *actual* conservative, and I do know quite a few of them--intelligent ones, too--they're just as outraged over the bloat and entanglement of our present government. This is why I raise the cry (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Not Saving Private Ryan.
 
(...) Hitler aside, in 1939 Germany had the most impressive military machine the world had ever seen. However, I don't believe the GB cowered; if anything we took the fight to Germany. We (with the help of our allies) moved on from Dunkirk in (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) I agree 100%. I very much doubt an attack will occur on US soil on the scale of 911 before the election. I know I'm a cynic, but I read some of Bush's 'warnings' as partly fear-mongering & partly electioneering. I feel there is an attempt to (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: From Richard: "It's all bad news - Chaos is my fault"
 
(...) That is rather offensive. I won't even bother to ask you to justify your statement. (...) That argument has some merit; I just can't remember you ever using it until today(?). Is any living man responsible for the murder of more civilians than (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Not Saving Private Ryan.
 
(...) I think it's fair to say that Europe ignored our advice at the end of WWI, so I'm not sure where the U.S. should accumulate any blame: "We told ya so!" :-) (...) The campaign in Italy wasn't working - the man who came up with the WWI Gallipoli (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) I keep looking for something like marshal/marshall/martial....oh wait, there should be a comma after "valid". You sneaky devil - I almost missed it! Do I win a cookie? (Flakey Flix, fudge, no substituting Jack Stone macrofigs) Oooo...ooops, (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Not Saving Private Ryan.
 
(...) Yeah. I cried too. I suddendly realized I was the same species as those butchers who sent men get butchered there that day. Both sides. If Europe and N. America had solved the problem with diplomacy BEFORE it got out of hand, none of this (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) Well if you want my opinion, then give it to me already! (...) I wasn't spinning; I was just predicting how conservatives would spin it. (...) Yup. Hard to predict what such an event would precipitate. (...) Again, I would be against a delay (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) LOL Many don't appreciate the (URL) electronic variety> either! JOHN (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) I'm sorry. I was referring to "Marshall Crenshaw" (or was that cole slaw.... perhaps I meant Cole Porter, or maybe even (URL) Coalporter>) Yeah, that's the ticket! (What's that you say, Scott? More plagarism???) (...) Come on, the question was (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) You may indeed be correct; I can tell you that if we did get attacked, you can bet that conservatives would fear a "Spanish response", and would spin the attack as an attempt by al-Qaeda to influence the outcome in order to elect Kerry (who, (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) Actually, I understood you better than you did, I think. :-) (...) But you wanted to plant the notion that such an attack would be to aid Kerry, regardless of what Kerry would want. It was just the spin you had to put on it when it really (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) It's clear? Did he mean Marshal Law the comic? Martial law? I'm so confused... ;-) (...) I think Dave!'s scenario implies a longer term than "a few days", otherwise there isn't a lot of point to the question. Basically John is restating the (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) Only because someone decided paper ballots aren't good enough any more. ROSCO (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) This is a point worth unpacking. Although the election in Spain was influenced by the train bombing, the fact that most of the Spanish electorate opposed the Iraq war was as least as important. In the US, the drumbeat for war was communicated (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) I didn't expect a green-eyed inquistition...:-) (...) I think you misunderstood my post, -->Bruce<--, if not completely. 1. Assuming an attack came on, oh, for old time's sake, 9-11 (al-Qaeda seems to enjoy this kind of Islamic brand of (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) Because I already know the answer that *sane* people would give. 8^) (...) I accept this in principle, but my question is more along the lines of Would Dubya Try It? And if so, what then? (...) Sure, if we were looking at Kerry's bid for (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
Why is this a question for the conservatives? (...) That's not what the constitution provides for. An event on the order of 9/11 (without minimising how horrific it was) is enough to justify closing stock markets, perhaps, but not enough to justify (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) I'm confused. It seems that John's answer was very clear from the snipped quotes above. 1. "A delay for logistical reasons would be valid." Expanding on John's point, I would suggest that something such as Dave's hypothetical about a power (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more | 100 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

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