 | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I agree that it's nit-picky when taken on its own, but the mindset is symptomatic of an apparent and as yet unresolved shortcoming of the Libertarian view--namely that those who are able to afford better conditions will become better able to (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I've said before I often agree with Libertarian theory - on paper. In practice, I think it has some serious problems - to be fair, what philosophy doesn't? I registered Libertarian to help get them on the California ballot many years ago, if (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I'd say that the folly is not so much living in the desert but trying to turn the desert into an oasis capable of supporting millions of people in a manner of living that is more suited to the humid east than to the Mediterranean climate of (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) If they aren't liable, then why do they spend so much effort dodging liablity? I'm not sure what you are basing your claims off of, but I gotta disagree with virtually every sentence above. And I'm also talking about throughout history, not (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) These are the types of soundbyte answers I was talking about, since you're giving them as though they're self-evident and sufficient in themselves, when in fact they're neither. Your first byte here underscores that the wealthy will be (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) There are too many people living in our world today. What we need is another world war to cull the herd, send the poor and innocent off to die in a foreign land while the rich sit back and benefit (and laugh too). I'm waiting for Bush to (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Hah! Classic 80's Cold War paranoia, with Patrick Swayze to boot! The sad thing is that paranoia helps sell weapons. I have no doubt that our country makes enemies when none are there just to validate military spending. I looked back at one (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What makes a cool kid cool? (was: Re: A new area of LEGO.com: the Build section)
|
|
(...) I think it must happen some, yes, and that's a probably a downside. CLSotW isn't specifically marketed at masses of kids, though, so I'm not too worried. (...) The competitive nature of the area is there regardless of the name. I don't have (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) away. I'm confused. I expected this to be anti-libertarian and so read sarcasm into it. But I don't think that it's warranted. Are you serious, Bruce? The opinion (sarcastic intent or not) is exactly how I feel. Put the ass of policy makers on (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) delete the slashes and insert the chars in <> c/<hange >can/< to >cannot It's an editor command, or supposed to look like one, anyway. Shows that you are Old Skool IBM with 3l33t VM 3d1t0r sk1llz, I guess. ++Lar (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
