 | | Re: A few things...
|
|
(...) Actually, I don't adhere to that scenerio. I believe he actually was hiding WMDs and their whereabouts is still unknown. But since we haven't found any, I am willing to concede the above scenerio, which would make SH out to be an idiot. It (...) (19 years ago, 26-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A few things...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) I'm glad to see that revisionist history isn't limited to the US administration. Looks as if John has the bug as well. <snip> (...) Dave K (19 years ago, 26-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A few things...
|
|
(...) By the looks of it, Helen is one of the few who are still asking the tough questions. The rest apear to be 'bauble heads', spreading the propaganda of Dubya. I also think you missed the point where she asked if the 'newly established gov'ts' (...) (19 years ago, 26-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A few things...
|
|
(...) Now it is I who must ask you what on earth are you talking about! (...) So, you'd advocate somehow going back in time and not rushing in. (...) The "mess" meaning liberating the Iraqis from the yoke of dictatorship? The "mess" in helping the (...) (19 years ago, 26-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A few things...
|
|
(...) What is it that you think we would do with that huge stockpile of oil? Steal it? (...) A lot of countries have them. Not many actually use them. Guns don't kill; people do. (...) Let's face it-- SH was an idiot. The guy read the tea leaves all (...) (19 years ago, 26-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A few things...
|
|
(...) What the doddering old idiot Helen Thomas didn't get was that we are there at the request of the newly established governments of Afganistan and Iraq. McClellan wasn't talking about our initial invasions. Did I mention that Helen Thomas is an (...) (19 years ago, 26-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A few things...
|
|
(...) Won't work--my family doesn't have a huge stockpile of oil. Nor did you supply me with chemical weapons in the 80's out of a criminally short-sighted sense of expediency. Nor did you all but grant me permission to invade Kuwait just weeks (...) (19 years ago, 26-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A few things...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote: <snip> (...) And then we have my personal favourite rendition of 'reinventive history'-- " MR. McCLELLAN: That's all I have to update at this moment. And with that, I'll be glad to go to your (...) (19 years ago, 26-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A few things...
|
|
(...) To you? Yes! (...) I would not have rushed there to start with. (...) Well, given the mess people like YOU got us in, I suppose I'd start by trying to hand over power to Iraqis. I would NOT rig their constitution or setup permanent bases in (...) (19 years ago, 26-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A few things...
|
|
(...) You have something against marriage? (...) Well, you obviously don't support the war, so what would you advocate instead? That we all go home tomorrow? Or do you prefer just to sit around and complain about things? (which is your perogative, (...) (19 years ago, 26-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A few things...
|
|
(...) Certainly not marriage! What on earth are you talking about John? Scott A (...) (19 years ago, 26-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A few things...
|
|
(...) What do you propose? JOHN (19 years ago, 25-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A few things...
|
|
(...) I had forgotten all about (URL) freedom fries>: “It was a culinary rebuke that echoed around the world, heightening the sense of tension between Washington and Paris in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. But now the US politician who led the (...) (19 years ago, 25-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bush says he will not use "taxpayers' money to promote science which destroys life in order to save life."
|
|
Frank, give him some credit. It is pretty hard for him to illustrate his well thought political philosophy with a series of focus group derived sound bites. ;) It always amazes me how the American-Right is eager to kill anything (e.g. criminals, (...) (19 years ago, 25-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Bush says he will not use "taxpayers' money to promote science which destroys life in order to save life."
|
|
Quoted from: (URL) so is Bush going to turn into a pacifist? Or does this only apply to medical science and not weapons science? Or does it only apply to the research itself and not the use of the technology developed? Frank (19 years ago, 24-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This just in: Republicans "lose" the filibuster debate
|
|
(...) Are you saying the above section appeared in the above URL? If so, they've edited it since then, as I do not see that section in the full article (at least when loaded in Firefox just a couple of minutes ago). -- Tom Stangl *(URL) Visual FAQ (...) (19 years ago, 22-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This just in: Republicans "lose" the filibuster debate
|
|
(...) Hmmm. Forget the the; not the the, the the. JOHN (19 years ago, 20-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: This just in: Republicans "lose" the filibuster debate
|
|
(...) it's YOUR responsibility to clean up any URLs that, because you switch, look icky. I've left it icky so you can see your crime, the underbars are throwing off the underlining and making it look all wonky. Worse, a plaintext link, by itself, is (...) (19 years ago, 20-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: This just in: Republicans "lose" the filibuster debate
|
|
(...) Well, there goes your argument! ;-) Yeah, invoking He-who-must-not-be-named (and I don't mean Voldemort) was a mistake and Santorum has already admitted it (I heard him say it live this morning on the air), but that still doesn't change the (...) (19 years ago, 20-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | This just in: Republicans "lose" the filibuster debate
|
|
From: (URL) Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania countered, "It's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942." He said Democratic protests over Republican efforts to ensure confirmation votes would be like the Nazi dictator (...) (19 years ago, 20-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
