 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) Today. Seat belts were once required equipment on cars but not required to be worn by passengers. Flawed analogy but the principle holds. It is not a large leap from "all A will be supplied with X under penalty of law" to "all citizens with A (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| Another News Update on this horrendous issue: Bill C. is still going on about how these new laws will somehow save children, but the real kicker is Janet Reno, on how Bill Clinton has made the children safest of any presidents, he is the greatest (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:12:37 GMT "Scott E. Sanburn" <ssanburn@cleanweb.net> wrote concerning 'Re: Trying to understand': (...) just a side note - if nuclear weapons were used, I really am not going to worry about the pets and trees killed... :/ Dan (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) I know, I was throwing in some liberal sentiments for diversity's sake, environmentalism and animal-rights. Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
