|
|
 | | Re: A few things...
|
| (...) The ones the UN believed that he hadn't destroyed. (...) What about them? (...) Figures you'd cite someone like Woodward. <yawn> (...) If? That, again, is merely your uninformed opinion. (...) I don't care if he got them from Uranus, it (...) (19 years ago, 28-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
| (...) I haven't used the newsreader since the first years of LUGNET, and not since the advent of FTX, so it is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma to me as well. (...) As a feature of my fiendish plot, only those who have faith in the UN (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
| (...) Are you on a newsreader? I've only ever accessed LUGNET via browser, so the whole thing's a mystery to me. (...) You fool! You'll kill us all! One editorial note: When I use Bush's name in a general sense as in "Bush invaded Iraq," of course I (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: A few things...
|
| (...) What WMD's???? But John, what about those poor Iraqis and their thirst for "Freedom"? (...) You need to read Plan of Attack. (...) Even if true, he still posed no threat to the USA(?) (...) Yep, and he got them from Washington. (...) What (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: A few things...
|
| (...) Good try John. As you (and Larry) well know, I said very much more than that. Scott A (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
| (...) That fills me with (URL) skepticism> (...) (reverting to FTX:-) (...) He was a known entity when re-elected. You had your chance and muffed it. Wait until '08. (...) Specify, and include to whom we should apologize. (...) If you really (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: A few things...
|
| (...) Personally, I prefer pin-up (URL) nose art> It still offends, but has the added bonus of (presumably) tweaking feminists:-) JOHN (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: A few things...
|
| (...) Correct. Because then we would have been satisfied that he didn't have WMDs at his disposal to possibly provide to terrorists. <snip off-topic material> (...) No, Scott, it is not "clear" by any stretch of the imagination. That is your (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: A few things...
|
| (...) As well you shouldn't-- looked natty to me. JOHN (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Newsweek (to touch on something I said in a n erlier post)
|
| (...) Correction: Clinton was impeached specifically for lying under oath. He should have said "I refuse to answer, because it's none of your business" instead of lying. But he looks pretty small time compared to these guys (and I'm one of those (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
