| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > The argument advanced by some that there is a clear and present danger
> > so strong that we have to ban SUVs a priori isn't supportable...
" a priori " ???
> I agree with much of what you have stated in the rest of your response.
>
> As to the above, I only want to be very specific about what I am trying
> to get across: I don't care about banning SUVs or Monster trucks, I care
> about their approximate height from the ground if they are used on the
> common roads and highways.
I agree in general with what Larry is saying, but I also agree with
Richard. Some basic rules/safety standards should be in place. That,
after all is the purpose of government. We collectively agree that
we'll drive on the right side of the road, that red lights mean stop,
that you have to pass certain standards to operate the motor vehicle
on public property, that insurance is required, that all vehicles meet
certain safety standards, (like having the same bumper height...) etc.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > ...that class, for me, consists of: {strategic nuclear weapons}...
>
> ...(on the other hand, the military does a lot in its training to
> train its members to use group think and not question orders, which
> reduces the possibility that one of the required people will say
> "hey, wait a minute, we've got no reason to nuke Boston just because
> Todd took too long to get the AucZilla MCM parts out.").
ROTFLMAO
SRC
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
26 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
