Subject:
|
Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 4 Jun 2004 03:50:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1356 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Hietbrink wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
|
| |
| |
Unless the attack was something on the order of a nuke on Washington D.C.,
I can’t imagine a good reason for delaying the election. Only a delay for
logistical reasons would be valid IMO.
|
|
| |
| |
But back to Bush-- if a nuke is detonated in D.C., I would have no problem
with Marshall Law until things were set right.
|
|
| |
Ummm, I take it that you aren’t going to answer the question...
|
I’m confused. It seems that John’s answer was very clear from the snipped
quotes above.
|
It’s clear? Did he mean Marshal Law the comic? Martial law? I’m so
confused... ;-)
|
I’m sorry. I was referring to “Marshall Crenshaw” (or was that cole slaw....
perhaps I meant Cole Porter, or maybe even
Coalporter) Yeah,
that’s the ticket! (What’s that you say, Scott? More plagarism???)
| |
| |
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 outage that shut down voting in certain regions would require a delay.
Anything more than a few days would, however, be unacceptable.
|
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
question into one that allows him a more palatable answer. The answers he
gives in themselves are perfectly valid for the scenarios he spins, but I
think they carefully avoid the real meat of the question.
|
Come on, the question was pretty vague. I tried to answer by providing specific
scenarios and my reaction to them. I’m sorry if that appeared to be a dodge to
you. I’ve have you know that I’m saving my dodges for a lot harder questions
than that;-)
What is wrong with this answer? “Only a delay for logistical reasons would be
valid IMO.”
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
218 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
