 | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) The market will *not* provide that... read the text I quoted. Consumers are too focussed on the low price of oil and the Big Macs. (...) As the text I quoted states, the market can not be trusted to look after the environment. Are you really (...) (23 years ago, 18-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If women were in charge...
|
|
(...) Add Turkey to this list. Once we had a female prime minister. Was it different? Hell no!.. Same level of corruption, if not more. Maybe the subject of a much more interesting discussion is: What would the world be like if real human beings (...) (23 years ago, 18-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) quoted this passage instead. "True, economists generally believe that a system of free markets is a pretty efficient way to run an economy, as long as the prices are right--as long, in particular, as people pay the true social cost of their (...) (23 years ago, 17-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If women were in charge...
|
|
(...) Ahhhh, things would be so much better! I mean, no war! Just look at Golda Meir...oops! Ummmm, ahhhh, that peaceful country of India, with Indira Gandhi....oh, drat, more war. Okay, that bastion of civility, England, and Margaret Thatcher (or (...) (23 years ago, 17-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If women were in charge...
|
|
(...) Better, worse? Who can say. Same! No way!!! Vive La Difference`! ++Lar (23 years ago, 17-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Watch it. I don't want another dull evolution debate to start again. After I typed by above text this morning, I found this interesting item by Paul Krugman. It is a little dated now, but it is still very relavant to this debate. Two key (...) (23 years ago, 17-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) SUVs! Hopefully, we are once again going to see evolution-in-action on them with high gas prices. :-) Bruce (23 years ago, 17-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) The closest we have come to a free market in modern times was Hong Kong before it was handed back to China. (...) Wrong. You have the cheapest pump prices. In environmental terms, what is the cost of cheap oil? Effectively, cheap oil means we (...) (23 years ago, 17-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I understand what you are saying. But the 19th century was not all that much better... it was just less organised. Remember, back then we had free market gems such as child labour and slavery. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 17-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | If women were in charge...
|
|
Greetings! After an interesting discussion with my wife the other day, I thought I'd pose this question to this group. What would the world be like if women (that is women who did not behave like men) were the major leaders (presidents, prime (...) (23 years ago, 17-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Arrgh. I didn't delete my edits. (...) No, it wasn't "free" in the sense that it was a market in which entrepreneurs enjoyed the ability to pursue wealth without the debilitating presence of official corruption inherent to the system, but (...) (23 years ago, 16-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
You might have hit send before you finished. But I think I see where you were going so I will reply. (...) I think we have to define what a free market is and establish if, indeed your example is an example of a free market or not, before using it (...) (23 years ago, 16-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Hmm. I'm not sure that migratory species (or non-migratory) could have owners, even in a Libertarian ideal; at least, not until we have a much better understanding of ecosystem interaction. It opens up many difficult questions, among the (...) (23 years ago, 16-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) A problem that I have with allowing "market morals" to uphold standards is that one only has to look at what unregulated industry has wrought at every opportunity that its been given. IMO, free market (im)morals produce the kinds of (...) (23 years ago, 16-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I do not view it as a "our needs" versus "theirs". Humanity & the environment are one. We need to stop viewing "the environment" as a luxury which is great when it is affordable. It should be viewed as a necessity. Further, I have to question (...) (23 years ago, 16-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I don't know if I'm a usual suspect, but I'll share a few brief thoughts: (...) I think that the most reasonable approach that humanity can take when considering environmental impacts is to work hard and sensibly to maintain an equilibrium...a (...) (23 years ago, 16-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I did do some reading and share your concern. The projected number of birds killed annually by this is quite high. But birds do die, they died before towers were first built. In the overall scheme of things, then, will this lead to a (...) (23 years ago, 15-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I'll have to respectively disagree. There is the 'famous' case of the Altamont Pass windfarm in your lovely state. Altamont Pass has the highest concentration of nesting pairs of Golden Eagle's anywhere in the world. Golden Eagles are (...) (23 years ago, 15-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) No, and that is not what I did. (...) I think I did. I _still_ think you are wrong. I do not feel that Israel "administers justice fairly" or respects the "rule of law". Eric Olsen agreed with me on this: (URL) chose to muddy the waters with (...) (23 years ago, 15-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) So it's OK for you to quote out of context, then? (...) out of context, I would have chosen this one... (...) Since you never effectively answered it. (although you did post, what, 4 responses to it?... Why so many? Couldn't compose your (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I was being rather sarcastic. Nobody is really wrong - we all have our opinions. Scott A (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Dan (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Percents, Per Se
|
|
(...) That's fabulous! I read an article back in '92 that proclaimed we'd already discovered 90% of the world's oil. Dave! (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Did I say that - No. Do I want that - No. (...) I am very real. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I shall have to read the book 1st. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) How wrong you are: "Israel has gotten, and continues to get, a raw deal in the world media, I have no idea why." (URL) A (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Well, then Scott's right; it *did* involve the use of force to conquer an area. Dave! (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Our society tends to be quite liberal with the use of percentage figures to back up a supposed presupposition or argument. Did anyone see that Nova episode about meteors? "We don't know how many [large] meteors there are in the solar system, (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) So anytime I quote you, I must quote every utterance to ever come from your lips? Get real. (...) guys. (...) I would be in favor that arrangement under certain circumstances. It does seem a bit too close to profiteering on death for normal (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I guess maybe a few hundred people would probably claim that it did involve the use of force to conquor the area. But the other six billion, when presented with the facts would not. Mike Oliver went to an unused atoll and used dredging (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) A "correct" opinion based on lies, falsehoods, generalization, and sheepish acceptance of the Zionist media model. Not a learned, open minded or fact based opinion gleaned from comparative analysis. Thus, in a world ethics perspective, (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) :-O (...) But you could not justify it any way! (...) I did not sentance them Larry - you did. (...) This is all out of context. You were asked a question. You came up with possible answers. One of which contradicts your libertarian viewpoint. (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Yes. I wholeheartedly agree. And they *are* damaging! Very!!! (...) Right, for example while maybe we can't move to a "zero pollution unless you pay everyone" model, I think that moving to a market for just about every pollutant (where the (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: the metric system
|
|
(...) Interesting. I went to a play this weekend, about Galileo and his ... interactions ... with the Church. I had always thought that Galileo's problem was that people did not believe his ideas, but the presentation of the drama was that a number (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I suppose I didn't phrase my intent very clearly. What I meant was that, although I know you and Chris aren't proposing things in this (non-falsifiable, et al) way, there are those who would do so, thereby damaging the credibility of what (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) single question asked of me... I am not going to reopen that particular thread except to say that I am satisfied, based on my life long intake of news, opinion, propaganda and falsehood, rather than based on any particular site, that my (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I don't have the details on this. But I will say this (despite what Dave! says below...) if it involved the initiation of the use of force against people who were already in lawful possession of the territory, it doesn't sound very libertarian (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I know that this isn't what you or Larry meant, but the statement above is indicative of another thing many people see as a problematic quirk of Libertarian philosophy. That is, if a system didn't work, it didn't work: a) because of an (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Yes, but I do NOT agree with being quoted out of context. (...) Perhaps the bad guys can pay to protect their people against the impacting missiles of the US & their friends? Scott A (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Unfortunate indeed. Did Minerva not involve the use of force to take the land of others?? Very libertarian. Scott A (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What makes a cool kid cool? (can this get any more blue-sky and ridiculous?)
|
|
(...) A bit of history here might help... "Cool LEGO Site of the Week" was named that back in 1996 when there were tons and tons of "Cool Abcdefg (type) of the Wxyz (timeframe)" sites popping up all over the Web. I think the first site was "Cool (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) It is good to see you agreeing with the libertarians on some things. (...) If we were preventing missiles from impacting, regardless of the nation that was being helped, we would be helping the people -- they are mostly good guys. Chris (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Minerva is but one of many failed attempts. They go to prove Larry's claim that there is an impermiable barrier to entry. Unfortunate. Chris (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I asked a vailid one here: (URL)(although it was posed in his own inimitably (...) Ah. That would be because I questioned YOU... and you never like that. (...) That is not very libertarian? I thought the libertarian philosophy was "me! me! (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) You say this like the two are related? Sure you be more free to work longer hours to pay for basics. But think about the lives of those across the developing world on which the West’s "freedoms" are reliant. (...) If you read around a bit. (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What makes a cool kid cool? (can this get any more blue-sky and ridiculous?)
|
|
(...) Not at all. You're the one that is setting the standard here (for TLG, while ignoring it yourself). Personally, I think you take this WAY too seriously. Kids shouldn't be coddled so much. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Fair enough. Libertopia, though, is more of a thought experiment to examine ways to make changes than a thoroughly serious proposal for (relatively) instantaneous change. Certainly having it happen (all at once) to as large a nation as the US (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: I've snipped a good deal because I think we're getting down to our basic and irreconcilable differences, just like the last time you and I went around the table a few months back! 8^) (...) to (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What makes a cool kid cool? (can this get any more blue-sky and ridiculous?)
|
|
(...) I do agree with you that the label is potentially damaging. But then, a lot of things are potentially damaging. This one may be small beer, compared to some other stuff. I imagine there are some (in the viewing audience, at TLC, etc...) that (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What makes a cool kid cool? (can this get any more blue-sky and ridiculous?)
|
|
(...) I meant where did you read it as in what brought you to that conclusion? I'm intrigued by your viewpoint because in my experience with people it isn't the case. I've met my share of embittered adults, but I've always assumed they started down (...) (23 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I understand that and I don't believe, or inferred, that Larry ever meant protecting America exclusively. But he did use the example of Iraqi "Scuds" as not a "created or fictitious need" for this defense system. I agree it may have been a (...) (23 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What makes a cool kid cool? (can this get any more blue-sky and ridiculous?)
|
|
(...) Read? Were you never a kid? Have you never watched kids? In the vast majority of cases, young children will change from crying like the world is coming to an end to laughing in seconds. Adults? Hardly. Do you have to READ something somewhere (...) (23 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What makes a cool kid cool? (can this get any more blue-sky and ridiculous?)
|
|
(...) I'm intrigued by that. Where did you read that? (...) If it was called "Cool AFOLs" then I would agree with you. --Todd (23 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Punative damages - the idea being that they'll think twice about pulling the same stunt twice. Everyone knows about the McDonalds thing, but virtually no one realizes it (and virtually every similiar case) had the award slashed drastically (...) (23 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: the metric system
|
|
(...) (sorry for taking so long to reply on this) ......but that is kinda funny :) (23 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I think you're missing the point, Tom. Why should the beginnings of a "space based manufacturing infrastructure" be based on military applications? My whole point is that, all too often in this country, we use "enemies" to justify alarming (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Seems like you already did the research, so please enlighten us. As I said, we should approach the matter with caution. Yes, we should research the matter so we don't end up doing more damage to our atmosphere. You got a problem with that? Dan (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) While I agree in general, Afghanistan did pretty well against Russia. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) You're missing the point, Daniel. Why in must "a space based manufacturing infrastructure" be a "business of warfare"? I think the fact that you seem to equate them speaks more about YOU than about Larry or anyone else. I think you're a more (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Daniel, I think you need to do a bit more research before you state the above. The upper atmosphere "generally undisturbed"? "Occasional meteor"? Think AGAIN. (...) Combustion of a liquid-fueled rocket (solid fueled are rarely used "that (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What makes a cool kid cool? (can this get any more blue-sky and ridiculous?)
|
|
(...) Oh? And who recovers from bad feelings faster, adults or children? If you think adults, you need to rethink it. The older a person gets, the easier it seems to be to retain and intensify bad (or good, luckily) emotions. i.e., Lugnet can (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) What is this "belligerent" stuff? Are you to decide which country is "belligerent"? Belligerent to whom? To us? What, we aren't belligerent? Are they more belligerent? Don't you find this attitude the least bit arrogant? (...) I believe we (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) A few years ago I read in a less-than-scrupulous...researched article that each launching of the space shuttle depletes between 8% and 10% of the ozone layer. Now, I'm not a mathematician, but we've had considerably more than 10 or 12 (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Hmmm, I wouldn't say that it firmly belongs on Saddam, I think the U.S. took the role of the trouble-maker kid on the playground saying "Ooooh, he's talkin' 'bout yo mama." There's a lot of underhanded U.S. stuff that went on, such as the bugs (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Didn't say otherwise, but it seems you are trying to slide the primary blame onto America instead of where it firmly belongs. Believe me, I'm not a big Bush backer. (...) Are you saying that "real" arabs wanted Saddam in control of Kuwait? (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) <some snippage of contents has occurred> (...) It is not clear to *me* that I believe America will always have any (significant) enemy. I rather think that as countries become more free, more of the world will become less belligerent. Many (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) The Iran-Iraq War was started by Saddam because of the bad blood between him and Ayatollah, in addition to sheer greed for oil and land. Doesn't change the fact that we backed him, though. Doesn't change the fact that we helped perpetuate the (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) If all the &%$#! New Yorkers would stop moving here, it wouldn't be a problem. :-) Mono Lake is slowly going back up, and the Owens River exists again. Honestly, if the water had been left in the Owens Valley, you'd simply have seen more (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Yes, there always will be a bogeyman - 'cause we will make one up if he can't be found. Military-Industrial complex. Or is that a bogeyman....? :-) (...) George the Elder had no problem with tyrants so long as he felt he could do business with (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Well said on all points! james (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I concede that I painted the geography of the region with too broad a brush, though I certainly meant no offense and I apologize if any was taken. I understand that the variety of landscape, vegetation, and climate, as well as proximity to (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
Addendum: (...) <snipped> Sorry, I forgot to do that on the post just before this. Dan (23 years ago, 11-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: The bottom line of your statement is being in favor of a space based missle defense system for whatever reasons you argued. Those weren't of any particular interest to me since I'm obviously on a (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) First and foremost, it is incorrect to say that Southern California, or LA is a desert. The beauty of So Cal is that we have variety. Parts of the area are desert, but other parts are mountainous, swampy, rolling hills, and even forested. You (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I think you can start from an unfairer place and move towards a fairer place without having to start completely from scratch. I about 1% of the time think we should throw all property documentation away in NA and start over, negotiating afresh (...) (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)
|
|
"Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:3afb4206.117264...net.com... (...) Ok, I think I get it now. I don't have as big of a problem with the name as you do, but I see your point. -Tim (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Well, I disagree on both counts, but I'm sure you're not surprised! 8^) I think that, as the proposed alternative to the existing system, Libertopia must provide the burden of proof that its notion of the fully free market won't result in the (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I think you need to demonstrate this is actually the case, though. I don't think it is. Ever heard the saying "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in 3 generations"? With a few exceptions, the idle rich children tend to dissipate their wealth and the (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Sorry, I wasn't trying to pass judgement on either side. I understand the point you have been trying to make, I'd just choose different ground to make it on than the roads. The roads in the poorer parts of SoCal tend to be broken up, the rich (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Neither, because that's not what the post said. At least not any that I saw, anyway. Feel free to provide the link back to the post to correct me. To reopen. It is my firm belief that a space based weapons platform *can* stop long and even (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
