|
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) In a Pythonesque link, you cannot carry a Swiss Army knife into Legoland California. Even one with a brick seperator...? :-) Bruce (who had to leave his Master Tinker at Guest Relations) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|  
bruce
(score: 0.375)
|
|
| | Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?
|
| (...) Probably. I suspect you mean, "are they being treated legally?", to which I would answer, probably not. (...) Interesting gray area. In the conventional sense, I would think not - but they would then have the rights of any accused criminal (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.375)
|
|
| | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) We don't have to look much further than the last U.S. Presidential election to find confirmation in that! (...) Rule Number 1 of political debates: He Who Mentions Hitler First Loses! :-) Bruce (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.375)
|
|
| | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Since this has evolved into a gun control debate, I thought the original message should be returned to. "An armed society is a polite society," is the quote used often by gun advocates to somehow indicate that politeness-by-threat is somehow (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.375)
|
|
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
| (...) This could be the case, but it could also be the case that people think the need for such a right has passed. I would think it would take either a consititutional amendment (no easy thing) or a series of presidents that had a litmus test on (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.375)
|
|
| | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) This avoids Dave!'s point: the "liberal media" mantra is just that. It's a cheap label that intends to dismiss criticism of anything conservatives support as biased. Some, of course, is biased in the liberal direction. But some is biased in (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.375)
|
|
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.373)
|
|
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.373)
|
|
| | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) How do you know that? Christianity never impeded war or terrorist actions in the past; they happen despite it, sometimes because of it. It's void to say 99.5% of Christians condemn such violence. Why didn't you write 99.5% of the people in (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
half
(score: 0.372)
|
|
| | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) Had france actually stopped them after occuping the Rhineland (which it could have done very eaisly at that point) the whole thing would never have happened. The German military at that point was weaker than Saddam's is right now. Instead the (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
half
(score: 0.372)
|
|
| | Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
|
| THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. As I speak to you America's men and women in uniform, and our British allies, are fighting for security, peace and freedom in the Persian Gulf. They're doing an outstanding job, showing bravery and skill, making our (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
half
(score: 0.371)
|
|
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
| (...) Complicated answer: At first, France's stubborness in getting heavy reparations was crucial to have them made *at all*; the Brits would have settled for the dismantling of the German and Austro-hungarian Empires, the Russians had their own (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
half
(score: 0.371)
|
|
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
| (...) It's the inconsistent foreign policy that I really want to see the end of. I was being a little 'over the top' to make the point, but it's like, "Hey Joe Schmoo, until you get your act together, don't bother coming out!" So yes, I was a little (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
half
(score: 0.371)
|
|
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
| (...) half measure. It is still true that only animals who have a steward that wants to push back will be remedied. So people can still throw flaming cats of highway bridges, as long as they're strays. (...) So you think that when a vet or a (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
half
(score: 0.371)
|
|
| | Re: Poverty myths?
|
| (...) So the population density of inhabitable China would be roughly double which is still about half that of Taiwan and remains insignificant compared to Hong Kong. (...) Assuming that is actually where most of their whealth is derived, is it not (...) (22 years ago, 2-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
half
(score: 0.370)
|
|
| | Re: Poverty myths?
|
| (...) Hong Kong is a city - it can't be compared to an entire country. Of which it is a part of, BTW. And I said OVER half of China is uninhabitaBLE, not uninhabitED - the last portion is even greater than the first. If you check where the majority (...) (22 years ago, 2-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
half
(score: 0.370)
|
|
| | Re: Poverty myths?
|
| (...) Taiwan, but the again more than half of China is uninhabitable. And Switzerland became rich charging toll rights to those who wanted to cross the Alps. Williams' arguments have less strenght under these facts, wouldn't you say? Pedro (22 years ago, 1-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
half
(score: 0.370)
|
|
| |
|
half
(score: 0.370)
|
|
| |
|
irish
(score: 0.369)
|
|
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.368)
|
