Debate : 28098


Off-Topic / Debate / 28098

Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —David Koudys

(URL) it's a lefty sight, but it has this excerpt from the Gonzales affair-- Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of (...) (18 years ago, 23-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —David Eaton

(...) Yeah, I don't get it. Has he seriously not corrected himself yet? It only seems fair that he be arrested and imprisoned for no reason. DaveE (18 years ago, 23-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —David Koudys

(...) That's the way he sees it anyway--I think some sherrif should put it to the test and walk up to him with some handcuffs... Dave K (18 years ago, 23-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Chris Phillips

(...) ...Nah, he wouldn't be able to. RoboCop's prime directive doesn't allow him to take action against an employee or board member of Halliburton or any of its subsidiaries, such as the U.S. Federal Government. (18 years ago, 23-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Dave Schuler

(...) Gonzo suffers from the delusion that the Prez is his client, when in fact he should be serving the interests of the citizenry. Instead of a champion of law, the Attorney General is acting as the primary enabler of and passionate advocate for (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) I wouldn't call incarcerating enemy combatants a disastrous policy. (...) I'd feel more comfortable discussing a specific example rather than addressing spurious, blanket attacks. (...) Every branch works the system to their advantage. It has (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Dave Schuler

(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Dave Schuler

(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) 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. (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Dave Schuler

(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Thomas Stangl

(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 4-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Tim David

(...) I'm not sure an American can really use that argument without being hypocritical. (Hey, Britain's record on the subject isn't too great either, before you say anything) Tim (18 years ago, 24-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) Well, you want your interpretation, and literal, too. Specter takes the Constitution literally when he cites "except in the case of invasion or rebellion", but when Gonzales takes the Constitution literally, you cry foul. JOHN (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Timothy Gould

(...) I think Constitutions are like religious texts. "My" sides interpretation is always the only valid one ;-) Tim (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Richie Dulin

(...) 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 (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —David Eaton

(...) I'm not up on this one apparently-- where did Specter take a literal interpretation where he ought not to have? In this case, it seems utterly plain. If the interpretation is that no right is expressly granted to anyone, but only that when it (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) Well, not considering 9-11 an invasion would be a literal interpretation, no? (...) The Constitution directs that habeas corpus can be suspended in certain circumstances; it is not an "inalienable" right, unless you believe that individuals (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —David Eaton

(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) Agreed. By being literal. But I think he did so to counter Specter's obtuse literalism. JOHN (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —David Eaton

(...) Are you saying that you think Gonzales was joking? Or that he genuinely ought to "fight stupidity with even greater stupidity"? DaveE (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) 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. (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —David Koudys

(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —David Koudys

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 (...) (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —David Koudys

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. (...) (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Dave Schuler

(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Dave Schuler

(...) 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, (...) (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Dave Schuler

(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Dave Schuler

(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Dave Schuler

(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 26-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Christopher L. Weeks

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 (...) (18 years ago, 26-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 26-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) 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! (...) (...) (18 years ago, 26-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Tim David

(...) Me, I have more respect for someone who has a naughty shag than someone is the cause of hundreds of thousands of people dying. Tim (18 years ago, 24-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, maybe. And then again (URL) maybe not.> Dave! (18 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) That is a misleading story (go figure!) The overwhelming majority of US troops in Iraq are positive, incouraged, and invested in their work. Many there are re-ups. Yeah, there will always be a few malcontents. But don't make the misteak in (...) (18 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Ross Crawford

(...) Oh yeah? You went and asked them all? (...) Yeah, there will always be a few heroic, inspiring, and humbling soldiers. But don't make the misteak in thinking that their attitudes reflect the majority. ROSCO (18 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) So, are you asserting that the majority aren't heroic, inspiring, and courageous? Point, please. Or is it that you simply like to hear the sound of your own fingers tapping the keyboard? JOHN (18 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Ross Crawford

(...) No I don't have nearly enough information to make such an assertion, but YOU asserted that "The overwhelming majority of US troops in Iraq are positive, incouraged, and invested in their work." (...) My point is that YOU made an assertion (...) (18 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) Without providing any information of your own, your point is pointless. JOHN (18 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Ross Crawford

(...) Read my post again John. In case you need a hint, the information I provided is "You made an assertion without anything to back it up". And I'll add some more information too - until you CAN back it up, your assertion is pointless. ROSCO (18 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) YOU: "Yeah, there will always be a few heroic, inspiring, and humbling soldiers. But don’t make the misteak in thinking that their attitudes reflect the majority." Deal. JOHN (18 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Ross Crawford

(...) John, you really need to work out the subtleties of debating. That was not an assertion - it was a parody of your sentence, used to make my point. Do you actually have anything to backup your assertion? If so, why not post it here, like Dave (...) (18 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) How convenient. So, your point was to parody my assertion by making a non-assertion assertion yourself. Subtle. But your sublime subtlety wasn't lost on me; I just wanted you to make your point instead of trying to WOW me with your subtle (...) (18 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Richie Dulin

(...) 'Antidotal'? Do you mean 'anecdotal'? Cheers Richie Dulin (18 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) hehe, would you buy that the malaprop was intentional? JOHN (18 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Richie Dulin

(...) About as much as I'd buy some of the other assertions in this thread. ;-) Cheers Richie Dulin (18 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Ross Crawford

(...) So you were trying to make me make a point that wasn't lost on you anyway? Why not just answer the point with some evidence instead of wasting everyone's time? (...) You did. By posting an assertion publicly with nothing to back it up. (...) (...) (18 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) You started the game; I was just playing along. (...) "Wasting everyone's time"??? Are you serious? The only time wasted is MINE every time I get into some insipid MPesque argument with YOU! If it's YOUR time you are worried about, DON"T (...) (18 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Allister McLaren

(...) It's people like you wot cause unrest. (18 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) Pot; kettle:-) (18 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —David Koudys

(...) Can't we all just... get along? Dave K (18 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) Hey, he quoted MP and I used a smiley-- it's all good in my mind! JOHN (18 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —David Koudys

(...) I quoted.... Well, to much to list, but I'll start with Mars Attacks... :) Dave K (18 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) Yeah, I was wondering if you were reffing something specific, but I couldn't place it, coupled with the fact that I never saw Mars Attacks... (18 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —David Koudys

(...) 1 word Don't K, that's really truncated 2 words, but I digress It isn't worth wasting your time. Tim Burton made some great movies, but this ain't one of 'em. Of course, some people really loved the movie--it has a bit of a cult (...) (18 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

The Classic Quotable Movies (was: Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???) —John Neal

<snipped> away the garbage-- thanks for the heads up, Dave:-) As opposed to the bombs, what are the BEST movies suitable for quoting? Here is my list-- please add on. In no particular order: This is Spinal Tap Ferris Bueller's Day Off The Princess (...) (18 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)

Re: The Classic Quotable Movies (was: Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???) —Chris Phillips

(...) The only one you forgot is (URL) Party Girl>. (18 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)

Re: The Classic Quotable Movies (was: Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???) —Rob Hendrix

"John" <John@TCLTC.org> wrote in message news:JF9o5z.Dr8@lugnet.com... (...) Some of those are my favorites, but I'll add a few because I'm a weirdo like that: in no particular order - *Friday *Don't be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your (...) (18 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: The Classic Quotable Movies (was: Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???) —Rob Hendrix

Missed one!: * Talladega Nights -Rob www.brickmodder.net (18 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Ross Crawford

(...) Ah. So finally you admit that debates are just a game for you. By the way, the point I was making (remember that? the one you still haven't answered?) was a serious comment about your post, what game did you think I was playing? (...) It (...) (18 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) No, Ross. What I admit is that for me, interchanges with you in particular most often are games. (...) The manner in which you engaged me. (...) What kind of evidence would suffice for you? Another story about high morale? Anecdotal. A poll? (...) (18 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Timothy Gould

(...) I completely disagree with this. By posting in a public forum you are inviting other participants of that forum to your discussion. You can take it to email if you don't want public responses. To post publically and not expect response is, in (...) (18 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Richie Dulin

(...) Or simply FUT lugnet.null. Cheers Richie Dulin (18 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) Not necessarily. Sure, anyone who is a member is free to read and respond to any given post, but unless there is a "comments welcome"or "LMKYT", for example, responses aren't solicited. When I post a MOC, I do not do so in order to receive (...) (18 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Richie Dulin

(...) I may have missed it, but I don't think you actually said 'solicited' in the post to which Tim was responding. Cheers Richie Dulin (18 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) "Invited", "solicited". Same thing, no? JOHN (18 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Richie Dulin

(...) Not quite, in my view, but putting the differences aside, you said: "I didn’t say “expected”; I said solicited." What you probably should have said was: "I didn’t say “expects”; I said invites." (or something similar). Paying attention to such (...) (18 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Allister McLaren

(...) Is this the five minute argument, or the full half hour? (18 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —David Koudys

(...) I was going to quote 'a few good men' for a cheap quotation thing, but instead, in order to score some political karma, I have this quote-- "The GOP has mastered an error condition in the political process, an infinite loop of abstraction that (...) (18 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) Sometimes the only way to get perspective is through the passage of time. You remind me of my utter comtempt with Ronald Reagan when I was in Kollege. History already is showing that Reagan was brilliant. Given the events that have transpired (...) (18 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) What saved Reagan was the division of powers in the senate and congress. As well, the 'rise' of mediocrity of the Rush's and the Hannity's that push this completely misnamed 'compassionate (...) (18 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) Then in 20 years, you and I will have to have a beer (by then it may be just (URL) Ensure> for me;-) at my future home in sunny Arizona and see for ourselves. I'll have a huge LEGO room, so your sons/daughters are invited, too. I'll have a (...) (18 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —David Koudys

(...) That'll put me at 60, and with 26+ years of tirades against the current US gov't, I may be on a 'no fly list', so I'll drive down ;) (...) Didn't read the book. Dave K (18 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Dave Schuler

(...) Reagan? Ronald Reagan? Surely you can't be talking about The Great Communicator, from whose myriad disastrous policies we had only begun to recover when 2001 occurred (with all the implications thereof). The only thing keeping Reagan from (...) (18 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) One of the most brilliant sketches ever written, IMO! Not necessarily-- I could be arguing in my spare time. Oh, I've had enough! No, you haven't! (18 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Allister McLaren

(...) SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE! YOU VACUOUS, STUFFY-NOSED, MALODOROUS PERVERT!!! (18 years ago, 23-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) lol well, gotta run-- I'm off to my Being-Hit-On-The-Head lessons.... WHAAAAA! (18 years ago, 23-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Timothy Gould

(...) I still disagree. By posting in a public forum you are, in my opinion, soliciting and inviting response. If you do not wish response, or if you wish only certain people to respond you should either not post or take it to email. (...) I agree (...) (18 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) Okay, we agree to disagree. (...) "Solicit" and "request" are synonymous. (...) I don't see that example as analogous. (...) I disagree. The point of a public forum is to share information and ideas. That can be 2-way, but not necessarily so (...) (18 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Timothy Gould

(...) Sure (...) They're not actually although my understanding of solicit was wrong too. (URL) Invite and request are synonymous but different. And that is one of the greatest and most confusing things about the English language. Tim (18 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Ross Crawford

(...) Hmmm. I wonder if (URL) Dave feels the same way>? ROSCO (18 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Ross Crawford

(...) Any particular reason for that? (...) I don't see how that answers my question. (...) So why assert your view as fact? (...) Another anecdotal assertion? Or just opinion? (...) Yet you keep responding... (...) I'm sure you can handle it. (...) (...) (18 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Tim David

(...) Why should we blindly support our troops ? This is not an era of conscription in the US and UK and so they have all signed up of their own free will. They aren't fighting to protect our countries, they are doing a security guard job elsewhere. (...) (18 years ago, 24-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Thomas Stangl

(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 4-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Christopher L. Weeks

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 (...) (18 years ago, 6-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —David Koudys

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 (...) (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Thomas Stangl

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 (...) (18 years ago, 4-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —David Koudys

(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 6-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Thomas Stangl

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 (...) (18 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Thomas Stangl

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. (...) (18 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Dave Schuler

(...) One problem there (among many) is that there has been no invasion and no rebellion. A single attack does not an invasion make, so there is literally no justification for suspension of habeas corpus. Dave! (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Timothy Gould

(...) A single attack can make a rebellion if it is by a citizen of the country. I can't remember if any of the Sept 11 bombers were US citizens but if so I would argue it indeed was a part of a rebellion. Tim (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —David Eaton

(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Dave Schuler

(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Timothy Gould

(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Timothy P. Smith

(...) 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 (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Timothy Gould

(...) 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 (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Timothy P. Smith

(...) Agreed. So much for .debate! :-D Tim (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Dave Schuler

(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Timothy Gould

(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) Yup. (...) Yes. And why I think Specter was being obtuse. (...) And not nearly enough "John's":-) JOHN (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Dave Schuler

(...) 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, (...) (18 years ago, 26-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) My sediments exactly;-) JOHN (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) "Single attack"? Do you forget (among many others) the first bombing at the WTC, Dave!? Maybe this debate needs to begin with the idea of whether or not we are at war. Are we? JOHN (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —Dave Schuler

(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em??? —John Neal

(...) 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" (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)