 | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: The bottom line of your statement is being in favor of a space based missle defense system for whatever reasons you argued. Those weren't of any particular interest to me since I'm obviously on a (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —James Simpson
|
| | | | | (...) Well said on all points! james (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | (...) Yes, there always will be a bogeyman - 'cause we will make one up if he can't be found. Military-Industrial complex. Or is that a bogeyman....? :-) (...) George the Elder had no problem with tyrants so long as he felt he could do business with (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | | | (...) The Iran-Iraq War was started by Saddam because of the bad blood between him and Ayatollah, in addition to sheer greed for oil and land. Doesn't change the fact that we backed him, though. Doesn't change the fact that we helped perpetuate the (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | (...) Didn't say otherwise, but it seems you are trying to slide the primary blame onto America instead of where it firmly belongs. Believe me, I'm not a big Bush backer. (...) Are you saying that "real" arabs wanted Saddam in control of Kuwait? (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | | | | (...) Hmmm, I wouldn't say that it firmly belongs on Saddam, I think the U.S. took the role of the trouble-maker kid on the playground saying "Ooooh, he's talkin' 'bout yo mama." There's a lot of underhanded U.S. stuff that went on, such as the bugs (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Daniel, I think you need to do a bit more research before you state the above. The upper atmosphere "generally undisturbed"? "Occasional meteor"? Think AGAIN. (...) Combustion of a liquid-fueled rocket (solid fueled are rarely used "that (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Seems like you already did the research, so please enlighten us. As I said, we should approach the matter with caution. Yes, we should research the matter so we don't end up doing more damage to our atmosphere. You got a problem with that? Dan (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Saddam sees confusion in Iran and makes a grab for the oil fields (and not the first time they've fought about that). Unless you subscribe to orbiting-mind-control lasers (fnord!) that's pretty much right as Saddam's feet. You're not really (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | | | | | (...) They guy's a greedy thug and a butcher, no problem with that. Invading Kuwait was his fault, no problem with that. But we still supported the bastard throughout the 80's, right? The Kuwaitis still aggravated the issue and America rejected (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Why did the US support Saddam? Why, because he was better than that bloodthirsty, nasty Shi'i Khomeini, that's why! (If you can't detect sarcasm there, you need your brain checked.) We figured that since Saddam was "secular" and willing to (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Hah! My fault, I'm used to the Arabic way of calling it "Saudia" instead of "Saudi Arabia." (...) Good for you! We need more!!! Dan (23 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) A few years ago I read in a less-than-scrupulous...researched article that each launching of the space shuttle depletes between 8% and 10% of the ozone layer. Now, I'm not a mathematician, but we've had considerably more than 10 or 12 (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | (...) Dang! It's gone! Where's the 200 sun screen? Bruce (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | (...) Sure, but it's 8-10% of the current (or remaining) ozone. So the first one stripped away 10% of the original amount, the next one 9%, the next one 8.1%, etc. So we'll always have some left. Or maybe the Ozone Flies just release more. Who (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Oh, wait, it's only 8-10% of the ozone it *passes through*, right? ;) I mean, good Lord, only if we're powering it with sulfur! (...) The solution, of course, is to simply drive our cars around in the stratosphere. (A reference, however (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —James Simpson
|
| | | | | | (...) Our society tends to be quite liberal with the use of percentage figures to back up a supposed presupposition or argument. Did anyone see that Nova episode about meteors? "We don't know how many [large] meteors there are in the solar system, (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Percents, Per Se —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) That's fabulous! I read an article back in '92 that proclaimed we'd already discovered 90% of the world's oil. Dave! (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Percents, Per Se —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Grin. When in fact we had already discovered 100% of it! At least 100% of that which had been discovered at that time. :-) Aren't the "proven reserves" larger now than they were then? Not that I know what that means, actually, it's just a (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) <some snippage of contents has occurred> (...) It is not clear to *me* that I believe America will always have any (significant) enemy. I rather think that as countries become more free, more of the world will become less belligerent. Many (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | (...) What is this "belligerent" stuff? Are you to decide which country is "belligerent"? Belligerent to whom? To us? What, we aren't belligerent? Are they more belligerent? Don't you find this attitude the least bit arrogant? (...) I believe we (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | (...) You're missing the point, Daniel. Why in must "a space based manufacturing infrastructure" be a "business of warfare"? I think the fact that you seem to equate them speaks more about YOU than about Larry or anyone else. I think you're a more (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | (...) I think you're missing the point, Tom. Why should the beginnings of a "space based manufacturing infrastructure" be based on military applications? My whole point is that, all too often in this country, we use "enemies" to justify alarming (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | (...) Because it will get things done faster, because no one (or consortium of) company is willing to pony up the money to do so at this time? (...) Oh, so we shouldn't allow anything to be done if SOME of the people involved are motivated by money (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | (...) What's the big rush? As I said, look what happened in the last century because people rushed into so many things without considering the long term consequences. It is entirely possible that we may end up creating another problem for the next (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | (...) Circumspection was urged in this idealised "then" you're talking about too--especially as regards air travel, motor vehicles, and even medicine. And no mistake, you're absolutely right, we made a lot of problems (although I'd argue the balance (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) And why do you choose to twist what *I* say? You misquoted and distorted me, without a cite, then had the audacity to say you were "protecting my privacy" by not citing me. That's rich. I use the word belligerent to describe a participant in a (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | (...) I don't need to twist things, I even showed you your own words exactly as you wrote them. (...) That's a distortion and misquote right there! I said I did cite your example indirectly but that I "respected your anonymity" by leaving your name (...) (23 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) And then misinterpreted them. (...) Sorry. You are correct. There is a *tiny* bit of difference between protecting privacy and respecting anonymity. Not enough that you can slip a piece of paper beween them, but a tiny bit. However, it's still (...) (23 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | (...) I call it as I see it. We don't see things the same way. That much we can agree on. (...) A tactic? What is this discussion to you, a game? (...) Distortion or logical assumption? Why else would AMERICA put a defense system up there unless it (...) (23 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) I think his point is not that we would _never_ protect American soil with a space based defense, but that we wouldn't be protecting the homeland from Iraq-launched Scuds. There are numerous reasons to build such a defense including: protecting (...) (23 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | (...) I understand that and I don't believe, or inferred, that Larry ever meant protecting America exclusively. But he did use the example of Iraqi "Scuds" as not a "created or fictitious need" for this defense system. I agree it may have been a (...) (23 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
