|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
klg
|
|
response 157 of 404:
| 
Dec 31 03:14 UTC 2005 |
Oh, I get it. If an AMERICAN CITIZEN wants to take A BOMB on board to
bring down a jetliner, THAT'S OK WITH RICHARD. (Just as long as HE'S
NOT ON IT, I'd guess.)
|
cyklone
|
|
response 158 of 404:
|
Dec 31 03:58 UTC 2005 |
You are such a totally lame troll. Richard may go overboard in expressing
his views, but he never said anything remotely close to what you claim.
What he wants is a LEGAL means to identify and prevent terrorism.
|
gull
|
|
response 159 of 404:
|
Dec 31 04:04 UTC 2005 |
Getting back to the original topic...the Justice Department announced
today that they're investigating the leak that led to us all finding out
about this program.
|
jep
|
|
response 160 of 404:
|
Dec 31 04:56 UTC 2005 |
I think it's true that the things we are most likely to see changed, are
the things that we all favor, conservatives and liberals together. I
happen to hate land mines as much as anyone who hasn't been personally
affected by them. I hate torture, too. I have good solid reasons,
grounded in my own political philosophy, for these stands. People like
aruba, and people like me, who are not afraid to cooperate with one
another despite other differences, are more likely to get a change
enacted than would be more radical people.
I am opposed to the unconstitutional behavior of the current president
because I am conservative. (And I voted against him the 2nd time
because I think he was dishonest and also wrong on the biggest decision
he will ever make, to invade Iraq.) I was opposed to the
unconstitutional decision of the Clinton administration to ban people
living in public housing projects from possessing firearms and I said so
at the time of the decision. If you think the Constitution is
important, it is as critical to say so when your side messes it up as
when the other side does so.
|
klg
|
|
response 161 of 404:
|
Dec 31 18:43 UTC 2005 |
Does John hate the land mines that have been keeping the N. Koreans from
infiltrating into the south and killing people there?
Does brodbeck find in unusual that the Justice Department should
investigate a criminal act?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 162 of 404:
|
Dec 31 22:20 UTC 2005 |
Land mines there aren't needed. And, please document all those people
killed in the south by the N.Koreans "infiltrating" by other means.
|
scott
|
|
response 163 of 404:
|
Dec 31 22:41 UTC 2005 |
Is klg willing to submit to a daily rectal probe because it might save lives?
|
keesan
|
|
response 164 of 404:
|
Jan 1 00:33 UTC 2006 |
I have done translations on methods of removing both underwater mines and land
mines, which continue to kill innocent people for many years after a war ends
and are very expensive to remove. I read that some Vietnamse supported
themselves salvaging large amounts of metal from mines. Dangerous occupation.
|
klg
|
|
response 165 of 404:
|
Jan 1 18:26 UTC 2006 |
Helke: I get that just by coming here.
Hey look what St. Billy himself had to say:
"U.S. rejects Oslo treaty against land mines
"By NANCIE L. KATZ, Copyright 1997 Special to the Chronicle"
"WASHINGTON -- Citing concern for the safety of U.S. troops, President
Clinton rejected international pressure Wednesday and refused to endorse
a draft treaty that would outlaw anti-personnel land mines.
"Hours after 104 nations backed a draft agreement to prohibit the mines,
Clinton said that negotiators were unable to get provisions to
adequately protect U.S. soldiers. But the president instructed defense
officials to find alternatives that would make the weapons obsolete by
the year 2006.
"'We went the extra mile and beyond to sign this treaty,' Clinton said.
'But there is a line I simply will not cross, and that line is the
safety and security of our men and women in uniform. As commander in
chief, I will not send our soldiers to defend the freedom of our people
and the freedom of others without doing everything to make them as
secure as possible.'"
|
nharmon
|
|
response 166 of 404:
|
Jan 1 19:06 UTC 2006 |
Just as some of us conservatives can admit that Bush has done wrong, the
liberals here can admit that Clinton did wrong with rejecting the oslo
treaty.
Does the anti-landmine treaty include sentry guns?
|
keesan
|
|
response 167 of 404:
|
Jan 1 19:30 UTC 2006 |
If people started planting land mines on US territory things might change.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 168 of 404:
|
Jan 1 20:15 UTC 2006 |
Most liberals here can admit that Clinton wasn't much of a liberal.
He paid lip service to many liberal positions, and some of the time he
did more than that. But it would be wrong to say that Clinton's core
convictions were liberal; indeed I'm not convinced that he even had any.
|
aruba
|
|
response 169 of 404:
|
Jan 1 20:26 UTC 2006 |
I very strongly disagreed with Pres. Clinton on the land mine treaty.
|
cross
|
|
response 170 of 404:
|
Jan 1 20:47 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 171 of 404:
|
Jan 1 21:11 UTC 2006 |
The hard thing is that all presidents have to pick their battles at
home. I seem to remember quite a few things that administrations have
tried to put throug that COngress wouldn't budge on. I'm not saying
that this is what happened here, but the fact is that the President does
not have absolute power, as much as many of them would wish it. And
there is something to be said about weighing the cost and consequences.
I'm absolutely against land minds, but if a treaty has provisions in it
that are frivolous or don't take into account certain needs of countries
that wish to sign it, the head of a nation has to take that into
consideration.
I do not think that Clinton was a classic Liberal, but neither do I
think he was a Conservative.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 172 of 404:
|
Jan 1 21:26 UTC 2006 |
Consider his national health care plan (even if the one suggested wasn't
the optimum): certainly a liberal concept.
|
scott
|
|
response 173 of 404:
|
Jan 1 22:39 UTC 2006 |
I'm confused by that "Clinton did something bad also" argument - does it mean
that if a previous President did something wrong, it's OK for future
Presidents too? Is W. Bush entitled to a free blowjob because Clinton got
one first?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 174 of 404:
|
Jan 2 00:47 UTC 2006 |
Good point. Actually, what the argument signifies is the person making the
statement is a knee-jerk Bushie unable to support or defend their position
on the merits. Kludgie and his ilk therefore hope to distract others from
recognizing the weakness of their positions.
|
gull
|
|
response 175 of 404:
|
Jan 2 02:31 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:161: They're a lot more eager to investigate this one than they
were to investigate the Plame leak. I wonder why that might be?
Re resp:171: He was a centrist, really.
I think conservatives like klg often make the mistake of assuming
Clinton is to Democrats what Reagan is to Republicans -- an almost
saintly icon who could do no wrong, and whose principles the faithful
believe the party should still be following. Clinton really isn't seen
that way in Democratic circles, particularly not the more liberal ones.
|
klg
|
|
response 176 of 404:
|
Jan 2 16:05 UTC 2006 |
Does Sylvia have any idea what a "classic Liberal" beliefs are? Or, for
that matter, does Curl? (Oh,no! I see Curl reaching for his
dictionary.) (By the way, what's a "land mind?")
So far, none of you has made any argument worth paying attention to. I
don't wonder why.
|
cross
|
|
response 177 of 404:
|
Jan 2 17:09 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 178 of 404:
|
Jan 2 17:17 UTC 2006 |
Isn't it one of those things that gets buried and 20 years later kills someone
who tries to farm the area? The 'anti-personnel' referring to it being just
the right size to kill a person.
|
cross
|
|
response 179 of 404:
|
Jan 2 17:22 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 180 of 404:
|
Jan 2 19:42 UTC 2006 |
If you're talking about definition of a Classical Liberal, as opposed to
an american liberal or economic liberal, which most folks these days
refer to as a classical liberal outside of academic context, it refers
to the belief in the government role to defend individual freedom and
personal property and a defesnive rather than interventionit,
government. Probably closer to Libertarianism as opposed to modern
liberalism.
Is that what you wanted to know, klg?
klg, you whine about people insulting you and detracting from the
argument, and then you do the same thing. Make up your mind. You
continue on the track you've been on lately, and you'll be the one no
one pays attention to.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 181 of 404:
|
Jan 2 19:48 UTC 2006 |
The Ottawa treaty would prohibit the use of the claymor with a tripwire,
but not a claymor that was detonated by hand.
Some land mines, like the ones the US Army uses, self-detonate.
Perhaps we can get a treaty to prohibit people from using guns in war.
Reminds me of a Star Trek episode where war was simply a computer
simulation and casualties were required to report to death chambers.
|