Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by David Watts, Jan 29, 2003.
The thread was definitely not civil.
Yeah, I think you are right about that. Still, it was relatively civil.
I like it .
Unfortunately, that cartoon is very true. I reckon about 80% of the anti war statements I have seen have zero thinking behind them. Just empty sloganeering. Makes me ashamed to be associated with the movement....
You want people to actually put effort into this stuff?
I wouldn't call it all that un-civil.
I've yet to see a thread that has subtatially influenced anyone here politically. I've seen plenty that caused bad blood.
This one wasn't all that bad IMO.
Chairman Mao, he say," No preparation, no right to speak."
I think the point of the cartoon was that both sides of the argument are tainted. Substitute, the word pro, for anti, above, and I would agree with you.
Actually, what type of proof? The resolution in no way declares that the inspectors find proof of anything other than proof that the items the UN knows about have been destroyed.
So I would think the pro-war side would be the ones holding up signs requiring proof.
While Moe Howard said, "Why, I oughtta..."