 | | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) You can't assume that because he has posted on LUGNET a few times, he is reading or aware of anything that is going on on LUGNET. The only real way to know if someone is a regular reader is if that person posts often each week. Sure, there are (...) (17 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: DST sucks! (was: malicious behavior)
|
|
(...) LOL ummmm shhhh, don't mention DST when talking to an Australian ;) ROSCO (17 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Ross, The difference is Tom uses a calendar that has months that are 20 days long on average. Those crazy Americans, first they mess up DST now they have a new calendar. Jude (17 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
|
(...) You keep out of this, Harry. Dave! (17 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) OK. I thought I could assume people would read my question in the context of the current thread, but I guess that was a rash assumption. So please explain how that difference applies in this particular case? ROSCO (17 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
|
(...) Until a few years ago, I was able to answer "Yes, he is!" whenever someone said "Bob's your uncle!" ROSCO (17 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) "Regularly chiming in every few months" over a period of 6 months means chiming in twice, spaced "regularly" over the time, i.e at 3 months and 6 months. Chiming in twice in the last 6 months could mean chiming in on Day One and Day Two, and (...) (17 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
|
(...) Well, he could have used Tom, Dick, or Harry, but then I would have had to pipe up ;-) (17 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
|
(...) Believe it or don't, my next door neighbor's name is Bob Doe. JOHN (17 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
|
(...) I have a brother-in-law Bob, a cousin Bob, friends named Bob... almost as common as the Daves I know... I was going to use John Doe or Richard Roe, but somehow Snoopy-as-lawyer kept on running thru my head... Dave K (17 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
|
(...) Did you have to use "Bob"? It's not THAT common of a name, is it?... ;-) (17 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
|
(...) huh?? The analogy was as close to apt as I had the time to make--Eric (being Bob) had committed transgressions on LUGNET in the past for which he was 'officially' forgiven. Now smomeone maliciosly attacked Eric, and people have chimed in (...) (17 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
|
(...) Dave, Your analogy is incorrect. It would be correct if Bob had done something in another town and then someone in the town hall had abused Bob for his actions in the other town, Bob had defended himself, James had said Bob was reformed and (...) (17 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Fair enough. JOHN (17 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) No it isn't, but it IS what makes me think he is still among the populus that reads Lugnet. And that is what you asked, isn't it? ROSCO (17 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Past performance is no guarantee of future results. (what you snipped: non sequitur) (17 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) LOL please explain the difference to me? (...) No I'm saying that because he posts every few months, that he is still among the populus that reads Lugnet. Whether he only reads when he feels like it, or when he gets an email from someone, is (...) (17 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Because twice in the past half year isn't the same as regularly chiming in every few months. (...) So you are saying that because he has posted twice in the past half year, he is regular reader of LUGNET? Sorry; non sequitur. (17 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) And just how does that make my statement "he regularly chimes in every few months" wrong? (...) See previous post. ROSCO (17 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
|
(...) Here's the thing--my justification for 'choosing evidence', if you wish to call it that, is like anytrhing else So here's a hypothetical situation-- Bob had a pretty 'transgressive' start to life. He had gotten into some unlawful mischief in (...) (17 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Figure it out
|
|
(...) No. It is at this time that you should leave Larry's name out of your psychedelic blathering and just STFU already. JOHN (17 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX) !
|
| |
| | Re: Figure it out
|
|
(...) It is at this time we should remember the sacrifices made by Communitity minded hero Lar+ , for in his zeal to make LUGNET a better place, sometimes over did it. Same applies to me as to yourself and a few others. Let us be mindful of brother (...) (17 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Figure it out
|
|
(...) --snip-- (...) Thank you for your apology. I too am sorry I sent you the profane image yesterday (and for what it's worth it was never made public and I'd deleted it from online long before I wrote to you). You are however completely wrong (...) (17 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Ahh in my haste I indeed make aaa huge gramatical error, look at that! You are so kind to point it oout, you are so awesome. You are so cool! Mega bow to your awesomeness. You made that Roo-Mech one time, it was so cool. (17 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Figure it out
|
|
(...) You still as a fellow Lego Fan, took another LUGNET member's pictures repeatedly from Brickshelf to use in a mean spirited manner is completely uncool for what ever your reasons. Until You, Kevoh, Jude and Soren used my pictures to wage your (...) (17 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
|
--snip-- I think this entire argument can be put down to a disagreement over what evidence is applicable to the use in the argument. I think you're as unlikely to convince me that your choices are valid as I am to convince you that mine are. We are (...) (17 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) I think you should start writing in English first. (17 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Once again obfuscation--my replies to your comments-- 'I’ve stayed out of this thread until this comment. There is no evidence that Eric is in anyway better than this. There is plenty of evidence that he is not. Just because people get a rise (...) (17 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tim's beef behavior
|
|
(...) I stand before your awesomeness. I yeild oh great brick master Tim. For your awesomeness is so great how can I build ye. The bricks are to small, I am afraid I can not compete. \\\...\\\ (17 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) --snip-- (...) If you think that Eric deserves an apology then perhaps you should apologise to him. Since you had as much to do with the original issue as I did then you owe him an apology as much as I do. Furthermore I've never argued that (...) (17 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) (*this is such a joke, I am just having fun in the way I transcribe the events*) Righgght! Brilliant, and upon further research one can plainly see, that another party, usual suspect, utters a complaint unto Eric Sophie's person, there by (...) (17 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tim's beef behavior
|
|
(...) Why bother? I was legally allowed to use them and given your typical behaviour I find it very unlikely you would volunteer to let me use them to poke fun at you. You can twist and turn all you like but what you did was morally wrong in my (...) (17 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote: <snip> (...) I couldn't give a rats ass about DMCA, 'fair usage', 'freedom of speech' or '1st ammendment rights' or whatever people are going on about now--it's all obfuscating the actual issue. (...) (17 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tim's beef behavior
|
|
(...) -Snip- (...) -snip- (...) I bow to your awesomeness. Ever think to ask for the images? That was "Outside" LUGNET, now What'd I do "On" LUGNET? Again, bowing to your awesomeness. (17 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) And the American Government... (URL) (17 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Eric, The last thing you did wrong was to submit a DMCA image against me for an image the wasn't breaching your copyright. The image was legal. As I have explained to you by email it is called Fair Use for parody. That happened a few days ago (...) (17 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
Tim, what was the last thing I did wrong? Refresh our memories and back up your story. Then tell me what any of this has to do with you or the Technic Side bar and Ross's actions. Since you like to molest my images, having broke the law several (...) (17 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hurry up, Global Warming (to my neighborhood!)
|
|
(...) Yeah, we missed those temps by a week:-( Hey, what's up? I was in Tucson all last week-- didn't you this (URL) this>? AZAFOLs unite! JOHN FUT.us/az (17 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Hurry up, Global Warming (to my neighborhood!)
|
|
(...) Vunny stuff - but it was 81 here in Tucson the other day and mid 70s today - so your chart needs some additions I'm afraid :-) (17 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Hurry up, Global Warming (to my neighborhood!)
|
|
I was on vacation last week to Arizona, and the temps were in the 50's. No problem though, since the high temps back home in Minnesota were below zero! It's since warmed up to the single digits, but this is getting old fast! My brother-in-law sent (...) (17 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
For full disclosure, I should note that clicking on (URL) results in reload and a final URL of (URL) it's still asking for payment to read the article. (...) (17 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
Dave, I access your original link, and I get: ---...--- Arar to stay on watch list, U.S. says PAUL KORING AND JEFF SALLOT From Tuesday's Globe and Mail WASHINGTON, OTTAWA — Maher Arar should remain on the security watch list barring him from the (...) (17 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
I know you were writing to John, but... (...) Well, probably for a while longer. My thing is that we've taken on a responsibility by mucking things up in Iraq. What we've done so far has be pretty bad. What we'd be doing by bailing out would be even (...) (17 years ago, 6-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Tom, I'd never knowingly link to a site that requires paying--I've never done so before and I still haven't--I don't have to pay for that site, so I can't figure out why you have to. (...) I found the free info and posted it. You know me--I'm (...) (17 years ago, 6-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) So you see no problem with spending a TRillion dollars per country for the war on terror? How long do you think the US can do this before a total collapse? Regardless of our rosy economy, if we insist on spending a TRillion dollars on Iraq (...) (17 years ago, 4-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Do you? You stated in the post before this that you have no idea what info the gubmint has on these people, now you seem to know the facts. Which is it? You know, incarceration != guilt. The gubmint either needs to take the time to prove (...) (17 years ago, 4-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
Dave, Please don't waste my time (and other) posting links to a site where you have to PAY to read the news. I'm sure you could have found the same basic info in a free link to post here. And just in case you try to say "it doesn't cost much in (...) (17 years ago, 4-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Good luck with that...
|
|
(URL) Lebanese-born German, who accuses the CIA of having kidnapped and tortured him, says he is determined to get an apology from the US authorities." A Canadian sent to Syria by the US gov't to be tortured, was eventually released because of (...) (17 years ago, 3-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we done with teh 'Bush is good to the country' meme yet?
|
|
(...) "Every nation has the government it deserves." Joseph de Maistre w. (true survivor of the "Berlusconi" government) (17 years ago, 30-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Are we done with teh 'Bush is good to the country' meme yet?
|
|
(URL) Jan. 29 — President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy" THe (...) (17 years ago, 30-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Proof that Canadians are insane
|
|
(...) Our nation's capital has enuf fruits and nuts and vegetables, thank you very much. Though, didn't Dubya come from texas? He's the biggest nutcake of 'em all... nuts and bananas.... a banana split! I'm hungry now Dave K (17 years ago, 30-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Proof that Canadians are insane
|
|
(...) Mmmmmmmmm.... Bananaaaaaaa Gaagghahghaghghghghhhhhhhh.... (Homer Simpson drool...) Dave K (17 years ago, 30-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Proof that Canadians are insane
|
|
(...) Ohhhhhh I see. You are a banana SNOB. OK. As long as we both understand. As I see it, this momentous project is not so much about the technical feat involved, or the GREATNESS of the loft; but that you just HATE the idea that a LARGE, YELLOW (...) (17 years ago, 30-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Proof that Canadians are insane
|
|
(...) Look, all's I'm saying is that if a group of Canadians want to put a giant banana in the sky, there's plenty of room over Ottawa. DaveE (17 years ago, 30-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Proof that Canadians are insane
|
|
(...) um, AND? this makes perfect sense. whats NOT to get? or is it cause it's over TEXAS? Chris (17 years ago, 30-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Proof that Canadians are insane
|
|
(URL) (17 years ago, 29-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Bringing it back to what started it all...
|
|
Turns out that Mr. Arar was a *Canadian* citizen who was born in Syria. (URL) Arar is a computer engineer and Canadian citizen who was abducted by the U.S. Government in 2002 and sent to Syria for a year to be tortured despite having no terrorist (...) (17 years ago, 29-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Hey, Chris-- long time! (...) clunk (jaw on desk) (...) I would. It's honest and correct. We shouldn't have to apologize for protecting our national interests IMO. Nobody else would. (...) spppp (monitor sprayed by pop) LOL (...) Is that the (...) (17 years ago, 26-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Well, that is only thanks to the Israelis when they wiped out Osiraq. (...) Please. Radicals would have nuked us long before Bush had they the means and opportunity. (...) Which is exactly why we shouldn't allow them to acquire them! (...) (...) (17 years ago, 26-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
Hey all :) (...) That doesn't do much to address the point, Dave! You're right, but John probably is too. (...) To secure a stronghold on the oil-fields of the Middle-East in preparation for protecting the US supply chain and projecting force into (...) (17 years ago, 26-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Ah, yes. Dr. Rice's famous "smoking gun mushroom cloud" argument. Sorry, but that's not sufficient. Hussein did not have and was not actively seeking a nuclear weapons program, so any argument based on that premise is invalid. It may be the (...) (17 years ago, 26-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) If that's true, then the appropriate course of action must be to err on the side of preserving liberty. Instead, in the fear-soaked aftermath of 9/11, we saw the Congress tripping over itself in its abdicate its Constitutional responsibility, (...) (17 years ago, 26-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Look at it as an investment in future security. Calculate the cost of a nucular (sic) detonation on one of our cities. (...) I don't think that the troops have a problem with this, so why on earth do the dems and the left have one? (...) We (...) (17 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Democrats aren't, with a few noted exceptions, calling for immediate withdrawal, so your question is misleading. Still, the benefits of departure would be many: among them, we'd stop wasting billions of dollars each month; we'd get our troops (...) (17 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) I don't see an upside of leaving at this time, but I see a big downside. What's the rush? I think it is driven more by hatred for President Bush than it is for a desire for the overall security of the US. Because the war is a policy of (...) (17 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) You forget that everyone bit on the bait, including the UN. (...) Of course it is. Not exclusively. But it most certainly is a front. (...) Does it matter where the front is? The terrorists are a part of no particular nation. We must fight (...) (17 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) The game is the 'bait 'n switch' done by George and anyone who follows him. The 'War on Terror' isn't in Iraq, though. At least, it wasn't until George invaded. The varying ideals for the war (...) (17 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Which would you prefer: a near-total media blackout on the real impact of the Iraq war on its innocent civilians and our soldiers, or honest and thorough reporting of the state of the war? Me, I'd prefer the latter, and it's a shame that we (...) (17 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) I'm saying that the MSM objects to Bush's handling of the war, so that is the opinion of the GP. Don't you think people would have a better view of the war if the MSM portrayed it in a better light? Seriously, I honestly believe that the media (...) (17 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Yup. (...) Yes. And why I think Specter was being obtuse. (...) And not nearly enough "John's":-) JOHN (17 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Well, that explains the chickenhawks and diehards, but the overwhelming majority of Americans object to Bush's handling of the war, so you're essentially saying that Republicans are fundamentally out of touch with their electorate. (...) Well, (...) (17 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Resolve for the war is sacred. Don't underestimate the passion for this issue. All others pale in comparison. (...) Not on THIS issue. As far as silly goes; come'on, what is the point of "non-binding" resolutions? Let the Dems stop playing (...) (17 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) The ostensible goal of Al Quadea is to create an international Islamic State by force. Since this would involve overturning the policies of nations and the acts of terror are (ostensibly) designed to create a situation in which this can happen (...) (17 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) OK. I think that manner of pronunciation is more accurately attributed to some like Jimmy Carter. President Bush's famous mispronounciation is, of course, "nuclear":-) (...) (URL) Here's> another perspective. (...) Not at all. If we had info (...) (17 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Why is it silly, in your view? And what does it say about Republicans in general that they're willing to oust someone who expresses an opinion that didn't come from the party's marching orders? Lately Repubs have claimed to have a larger tent (...) (17 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Hard to say, honestly. I've been giving this some more thought, and it seems to me that a necessary component of rebellion is a desire to break from the targeted nation (or break from some or all of its policies) without necessarily requiring (...) (17 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) If Hagel votes "yay" for this silly and pointless non-binding resolution, republicans will throw him under the bus, gahr-un-teed. And that goes for ANY senator with an R after their name. Even HE knows it, as evidenced by his own questioning (...) (17 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Agreed. So much for .debate! :-D Tim (17 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) My sediments exactly;-) JOHN (17 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Yeah. Most (if not all) of the Tube bombers and failed tube bombers were UK citizens. Many of them were even born here. I'd personally count that as rebellion. Tim (17 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) The 9/11 guys weren't US citizens (I think one or two were). But hasn't the UK had trouble with terrorism by citizens? (not the Ireland troubles, but the 21st century kind). Tim (17 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) If most of them weren't US citizens then I agree with the latter part of this argument. With Terror tactics and WMDs (such as a Boeing 747) then a viable body of rebels doesn't have to be large. Were the hijackers US citizens by and large then (...) (17 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) Speaking of Demogoguery... (URL) wait, he's a Republican. I guess his speechifying can't be considered that. As an aside, I agree with everything Hagel stated and consider him a man of class. (...) (17 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) In a literal meaning, war on a noun--eh, hardly humour there In the meaning that we both probaby agree on--a war against fanaticals who appear to have no issue with killing civilians of any (...) (17 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Sorry, Tim--I missed your post, or I would have responded earlier. DaveE has already offered good thoughts on this point, but I'd go in a slightly different direction. In my view, a rebellion necessarily consists of a viably large body of (...) (17 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) LOL I think they're a bit like a wedge of vintage cheddar: They seem solid, but the edges always crumble a bit, and someone is always going to be lactose intolerant and not want any part of it. Cheers Richie Dulin (17 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) It's pretty sketchy. You could define "rebellion" as a group of citizens who take action against the government. But does that action necessarily require that it's an armed action, or a physically destructive one? What if they were hacking in (...) (17 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) John, with due respect, you don't know that. Many of these detainees were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, or they were mistaken for someone else, or they were coerced into fighting against invading US forces. We have only the word (...) (17 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Excellent question. I don't know. But I do know that if they are released, they will attack us again. (...) No, I think it was in response to a new category of enemy who isn't represented by a nation-state. They don't deserve a trial by jury. (...) (17 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Do you think the war on "terrah" is a joke? Who knows upon what information the US government is acting upon. I don't, so I can't comment. (...) "Demogoguery"? (...) Let me count the ways: They aren't even a real country anyway. Their hockey (...) (17 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) And if you leave the US justice system to sort things out regarding this 'war on terrah', they deport Canadians to Syria (URL) glad *some* senators are calling it what it is-- (URL) "We knew damn well if he went to Canada he wouldn't be (...) (17 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) I have no idea. All I'm saying is that if you hold to a strictly literal interpretation of the Constitution (as Dave initially suggested), you can get absurd conclusions, as both Specter and Gonzales have illustrated. And so the game goes on. (...) (17 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) But they are entitled to certain protections that, by design, are denied to this latest batch. For example, prisoners of war are to be released at the war's end, but Dubya has pretty clearly stated that the War on Terror will never be over. So (...) (17 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Are you saying that you think Gonzales was joking? Or that he genuinely ought to "fight stupidity with even greater stupidity"? DaveE (17 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Enemy combatants have never had a right to trial. (...) This term wasn't invented or coined by President Bush, so don't blame him or Gonzo. (...) Is your rant against the classification of "enemy combatant" and its legal status? Or are you (...) (17 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Agreed. By being literal. But I think he did so to counter Specter's obtuse literalism. JOHN (17 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Only because no other scenario was imagined. So it would be your opinion that, if a scenario of terrorist attacks like 9-11 were somehow proposed to the FF, they wouldn't include that form of violence in their "invasion or rebellion" (...) (17 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) I guess the distinction I'm trying to make here is that if Gonzales's assertion is accurate, there's no definitions anywhere of what constitutes someone with the right to habeas corpus and someone who doesn't. In effect, it invalidates Article (...) (17 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Of course not--RW radio mentions it daily, every time they blame Clinton for 9/11. (...) Okay, so two attacks in a decade constitute an invasion? Sorry, but "invasion" implies the insertion of a substantial military presence into the target (...) (17 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Sure it is, if these individuals are stripped of all rights to trial. Bush is declaring "they're guilty because I say so, so we don't need a trial to hold them indefinitely." Sorry, but that's a pretty abominable statement for the leader of (...) (17 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
