 | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
Dave, I don't have a particularly tight rebuttal to your issue with the roads. I do believe that the nature of our world/nation/whatever would change with the coming of Libertopia. Some of the changes are unpredictible. I think that economic (...) (23 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I think his point is not that we would _never_ protect American soil with a space based defense, but that we wouldn't be protecting the homeland from Iraq-launched Scuds. There are numerous reasons to build such a defense including: protecting (...) (23 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I call it as I see it. We don't see things the same way. That much we can agree on. (...) A tactic? What is this discussion to you, a game? (...) Distortion or logical assumption? Why else would AMERICA put a defense system up there unless it (...) (23 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Ah, now I see. My reasoning proceeds from the idea that, as roads deteriorate, wealthy communities are able to afford the upkeep without curtailing their spending on food, rent, and clothing. Poorer communities, faced with deteriorating roads, (...) (23 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) And then misinterpreted them. (...) Sorry. You are correct. There is a *tiny* bit of difference between protecting privacy and respecting anonymity. Not enough that you can slip a piece of paper beween them, but a tiny bit. However, it's still (...) (23 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Hah! My fault, I'm used to the Arabic way of calling it "Saudia" instead of "Saudi Arabia." (...) Good for you! We need more!!! Dan (23 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I don't need to twist things, I even showed you your own words exactly as you wrote them. (...) That's a distortion and misquote right there! I said I did cite your example indirectly but that I "respected your anonymity" by leaving your name (...) (23 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Oh, wait, it's only 8-10% of the ozone it *passes through*, right? ;) I mean, good Lord, only if we're powering it with sulfur! (...) The solution, of course, is to simply drive our cars around in the stratosphere. (A reference, however (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Sure, but it's 8-10% of the current (or remaining) ozone. So the first one stripped away 10% of the original amount, the next one 9%, the next one 8.1%, etc. So we'll always have some left. Or maybe the Ozone Flies just release more. Who (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Why did the US support Saddam? Why, because he was better than that bloodthirsty, nasty Shi'i Khomeini, that's why! (If you can't detect sarcasm there, you need your brain checked.) We figured that since Saddam was "secular" and willing to (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I think that I think Dave is almost right. It still won't be fair. (If I understand what is meant by fair.) Larry has more marketable skills than I do and I have more marketable skills than the lady who's changing the trash can behind me. Very (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) And why do you choose to twist what *I* say? You misquoted and distorted me, without a cite, then had the audacity to say you were "protecting my privacy" by not citing me. That's rich. I use the word belligerent to describe a participant in a (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Circumspection was urged in this idealised "then" you're talking about too--especially as regards air travel, motor vehicles, and even medicine. And no mistake, you're absolutely right, we made a lot of problems (although I'd argue the balance (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) a (...) I mean that business liability as found by a court is virtually always disproportionate with the damages done. They are often fined way too much, and people make jokes about it for years (McDonalds coffee comes to mind), and they are (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) My attempt was merely to point out that one group is paying more for road improvement and the other group is paying more for delivered goods. It is not at all clear from this which group would be the poor and the rich. Or even, which way of (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) They guy's a greedy thug and a butcher, no problem with that. Invading Kuwait was his fault, no problem with that. But we still supported the bastard throughout the 80's, right? The Kuwaitis still aggravated the issue and America rejected (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) What's the big rush? As I said, look what happened in the last century because people rushed into so many things without considering the long term consequences. It is entirely possible that we may end up creating another problem for the next (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Dang! It's gone! Where's the 200 sun screen? Bruce (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Saddam sees confusion in Iran and makes a grab for the oil fields (and not the first time they've fought about that). Unless you subscribe to orbiting-mind-control lasers (fnord!) that's pretty much right as Saddam's feet. You're not really (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Because it will get things done faster, because no one (or consortium of) company is willing to pony up the money to do so at this time? (...) Oh, so we shouldn't allow anything to be done if SOME of the people involved are motivated by money (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
