 | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) First, if they actually were compliant with all the available data, then just like in the current system, we understand it to be a mistake and they do what they can to clean it up. Let's assume though, that there were data suggesting that it (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Business has never been free to realize that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. They have never been actually liable for their damages across the long term. They have never existed in an unrestrained market where the government (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Sure. And if the public believed that, based on the evidence, and all the massive evidence counter to that organization's claims, then Joe Smith would get rich dumping into the reservoir. Just like today. Only, in Libertopia: a)I think that (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Naw, he want's oil prices to skyrocket. You (okay, the American people rejected him, but there he is) elect oilmen, what do you expect? When re-election time comes, he's going to find out all those California businesses that saw their profits (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) That's 'cause the government didn't bother to read the rules to Illuminati: Weird Groups (Gamers) are immune to Government Groups (Secret Service). Fnord. (...) Yeah for Libertopia! These corporate sharks rape the system for all it's worth, (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) lol, sorry if I came across like that, I was just wishing that mine was not as high as it is. I have a one bedroom apt, so I know my bill is less than many others, so I do feel lucky for that. (...) True, but your state will follow soon, Cali (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: July surprise for castle fans!
|
|
(...) Absoloutely fine. Heck, that's probably why Anthony started this part of the thread. And I certainly agree that there are those who want 'em. I guess what I was suprised at was the sarcasm. [FUTting to o-t.debate just in case]. If you want to (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What makes a cool kid cool? (was: Re: A new area of LEGO.com: the Build section)
|
|
(...) lol, was it me? ( (URL) ). My post there says what I would have posted here. (...) Good point! Basically, the core of it is the same thing? Even has the 'cool' part. I can not recall many (note: I said recall, not saying there has not been) (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) No, that's not it. I'll try to track it down for you. I got it from a recent debate about the proposed Patient's Bill of Rights. D (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: But I was serious about the c/can/cannot thing. What does that mean? Dave! (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
