To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / *10911 (-100)
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) I accept that you don't think it's important, and I accept also your assertion that you would be willing to have society "start from scratch" (ie: with everyone truly equal) if it meant that Libertopia could be realized. (URL) In that way, you (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) It would seem to me that you don't think it particularly important is an illustration of the problem. (...) And long term detriments may not be visible to all the Libertarian Party members. I did give a specific example (Libertarians allowing (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) If that were the sum of the problem, then we chould just have Iron Man fix it for us. And where's HYDRA in all of this? Dave! FUT OT.FUN (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
<snipping> (BTW, before I start, SCLC was the movement originally led by Martin Luther King, Jr. - the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.) (...) Notice that this answer is waaaaay over-simplified. Please don't attack me on demographics, etc. (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) I doubt they have LP support! (...) What are you saying? Are you saying those "People currently on welfare" are the ones not joining the LP? i.e. "People currently on welfare" are all but white males? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  (canceled)
 
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Pivotal in the anti segregation movement. (...) I think, stated that way, it's a fair enough (but not particularly important) question. I don't know "the answer" but I advanced my theory already. To (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Are you implying a causative relation between higher education and some realization that the Libertarian Party is the "correct" path? I'm not trying to misread you, but I want to understand if this is what you're asserting. Regardless (and (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (was Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda))
 
(...) lol. If you understood UK politics you would know you have just shot yourself in the foot. (...) You are not reading the text I quoted. Think a little deeper Larry. From their platform: (URL) autonomy to the citizen Revert to authority of (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Yup, that's pretty much it - and let me add that I don't regard the Libertarian Party as a white supremacist group in the slightest. I'd said what I did in part because I think the Libertarian Party *for it's own benefit* needs to address the (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) South Coast Liesure Club? Sunny California Libertarian Clique? Advanced Ideas Mechanics? Accuracy in Media? Asian Internet Marketing? I don't speak initial. Well, solved the second with my Apache buddy literally walking by as I was typing (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) It may be that that is the adult lego market? (...) Indeed. I think that starting point for looking at the background of the users of Lugnet is to look at the users on the internet and of Lego. Looking at Lugnet alone is useless in my opinion. (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (was Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda))
 
(...) If these guys are Libertarians, then Tony Blair ought to be running for the chair of the Tories. Putting a word in your name doesn't make you that word. (...) If these guys are Greens, then Robert Byrd ought to be stumping for the presidential (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Like I say Larry, you are full of opinion which you just cannot justify. All I am asking for, on this one, is a simple reference – but you are simply unable to mange it. (...) ...another insult - how adult. (...) I think it is a fair question (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) How do you determine the fair price? That's a serious question, you speak of fair trade (which tends to be a code word here in the US for unfree trade), but how do you know what is fair? Who (or what mechanism) determines it? (...) What are (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Why does LUGNET (in general) attract well educated white males? From my observations, Larry is right. LUGNET does not represent the statistical make-up of the countries in which it resides. Is this due to education? Economical status? (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Not going to play this game any more, sorry. I've justified my assertion that LUGNET members are more white and more male than the averages to my satisfaction, and surely to the satisfaction of any reasonable person. If it's not to *your* (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Let's start with an very very easy one: From: (URL) It was, at least for the 20+ fests, meetings, events, (...) Scott: This is all noise, BUT where did you get the averages from? =*= Next we will do a very easy one. Scott A (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) You don't know the answer to his/her questions either? tut. tut. You are full of opinion, but you seldom wish to justify it. Perhaps you need to think a little deeper, rather that doing a simple cut 'n' paste with LP dogma? Answer my points (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Dave voiced some concerns, which I addressed. Your contribution, on the other hand, consists of "why why why why why why". I had a 3 year old who did that, but he grew out of it. ++Lar (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) I did not challenge you. This is all noise, BUT saying "I count noses in fest pictures" make it sound like you do it all the time. I'm glad you don't. (...) This is all noise, BUT where did you get the averages from? (...) It does for the LP (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (was Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda))
 
(...) These ones: From (URL) Libertarian National Socialist Green Party is in part based upon the work of the Libertarian party from whom we gain appreciation for the individual spirit and independence from a morally-judgmental, active government. (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) I *don't care* what the makeup of LUGNET or the hobby is. I never said I did. I just said it wasn't the same as the overall population. When you challenged me I went off and counted noses at that point in order to see if my hunch was right. It (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Indeed. The notion that a bunch of white guys can sit around constructing a libertarian dreamland which will be on benefit to all is a complete anathema to me. Scott A (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) I have no idea what the SCLC is, so I have no real opinion on it. (...) One could argue that you are using your memebership fee to invest in a Libertarian future. Your fellow members may hope for a return on that investment in the longer or (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) I would like to be the judge of that. (...) Hmm. So you are keeping a count? What sort of a person would do that? It is not a thing I worry about. (...) Not much more. I have been to 1 fest. I think the makeup was ~10-20% scottish, and (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: New Brickbay promotion
 
(...) Oh ya! Dat's fer shur. Yawp. Izzit too late to be buildin' a shanty on dat dere lake dis year? (...) He really does! In terms of "north-up" *and* elevation, if memory serves. But it takes more than that to be a real troll; you need to eat (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: New Brickbay promotion
 
(...) I don't think you are a racist but I do think you may be misinformed, it is no more accurate to say that a Gypsy is a swindler than it is to say that a Yooper is stupid. ++Lar (a troll... literally! I live below *the* bridge.) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Let's dig into that a bit... Is that an accurate supposition? That is, *are* there things that are "good for you" that you wouldn't necessarily choose to do? We know that's true in the individual case, right? I know that exercising more and (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: New Brickbay promotion
 
(...) Don't mind me, but isn't that what a Gypsy is? Josh P.S. Please don't think of me as a racist or something... (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) The sad thing is that Economic sanctions barely harm those that make the nations decisions. Any person in goverment or in a powerful position will still get their fine food, medical facilities and luxury goods. Thats a fact about such corrupt (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: New Brickbay promotion
 
(...) What if you're overcharged for a low-quality load of gypsum? 8^) (...) And here I was afraid you were trying to sneak in some Nazi propaganda! 8^) Anyway, I wasn't able to type the umlaut so it came through the same! You crystallized it for (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: New Brickbay promotion
 
(...) Dave, I *know* you're smarter than this. You know well the difference between the semantic load of "gypsum" (if there is one, outside of East Tawas, MI, where it indicates employment ;) ) and that of "gypping" (or "Gypsy"). (...) What's so (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Reply sent privately. Re: New Brickbay promotion
 
In lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, William R. Ward writes: <SNIP> Notice is given to all that a reply was sent in private. Paul Sinasohn LUGNET #115 (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) That's an entirely different subject. My point is to allow Iraq to function as country by lifting the sanctions that have destroyed the nations infrastructure and demoralized and destroyed the lives of so many innocent people. (...) There's an (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
 
(...) 100% pure bullsh*t my friend, but you will think as you wish. By rephrasing it, you changed the meaning for your selfish purposes, not for the greater need of understanding. If you were intent on understanding, you wouldn't throw in the little (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Etymological Oddities (was Re: New Brickbay promotion)
 
(...) Maggie C. (who would be living testament to the notion that the memory is the first to go except that I've always been this way! Oh, wait, I hope I'm not offending anyone with my use of the word TESTAMENT!) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) American groups working for political or social change. What exactly they were advocating isn't important to my point. (...) No, I count noses in fest pictures. It may be an invalid inference from that to the makeup of lugnet as a whole but (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Since I share Bruce's misgivings on this subject, I'll mention a few thoughts, too. The validity or invalidity of the LP's views is, of course, wholly independent of the racial, cultural, age, or gender makeup of the party, but that's not what (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Ok, what is SCLC or AIM? (...) How do you know that we are more white - you only assume (as I do). That is not really the question (LUGNET does not attempt to represent the views of society). The question is : Why is the LP so "white"? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Ok, what is SCLC or AIM? (...) How do you know that we are more white - you only assume (as I do). Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Why? Was the message of the SCLC less valid because SCLC members were mostly black? Was the message of AIM less valid because AIM was mostly native american? I resent the implication that groups need to be "ethnically balanced" to have valid (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Well, heck--you've met pretty much the entire Party. (URL) Dave! (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Thanks for the pointer. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: New Brickbay promotion
 
(...) I imagine some will get similarly upset when I refer to gypsum. If people are willing to go to such preposterous etymological lengths to be offended, I'd like to point out that every time someone "testifies" in court or elswhere, that person (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) So if a business, American or otherwise, trades with Iraq, selling food, tools, whatever, and they make lots of money -- is that bad or good? Are they economic imperialists? Are they exploiting the Iraqis? What about buying oil from Iraq? Does (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Etymological Oddities (was Re: New Brickbay promotion)
 
(...) I think it was taken fairly seriously--not as a veiled slur but as a matter of public embarrassment resulting in an offer of resignation by the "offending" party: (URL) In any case, I'm offended by your invocation of Hitler in your use of the (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Yes and no. "Coloured" (sic: colored <g>) is a really poor term that isn't particularly used in America. It carries the implication that europeans are "normal" and others are not. In the sense Larry meant it, I agree. But in the sense that you (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Avoiding the question I think. Interestingly, I searched for "militia libertarian racist" on google and it came up with this site: (URL) you search that page for occurrences of "libertarian" you will see that I was not all wrong. Scott A (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
 
(...) Thanks for that clarification. Rephrasing it, what I see you saying is that you're never wrong about anything, or at least never willing to admit it, and that you never misstate anything, or at least never see any need to ever correct anything (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian Propaganda
 
(...) I give up. Why? I've never been in favor of it. Or government aid to anyone else except in certain very special situations. ++Lar (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) 100% (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Do these poeple not all tend to group together in readiness for the day the FBI comes to get them and take away their rights? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) I may well. My US geogrphy is poor. (...) OK, who is john bircher? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) It is based the a serialisation of a book by Jon Ronson : (URL) read serialisation of the book and heard an interview with him in the BBC. He is clear that those who were at Ruby Ridge and Waco are "heroes of the libertarian movement". (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: New Brickbay promotion
 
(...) I've seen indications that it may be a word derived from the trading port of Alexandria, where Egyptian traders' interactions with Europeans gave rise both to the "gypsy" and "gypping" concepts. This is supposedly because at the time Europeans (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) Maybe I should explain the sanctions against Iraq better. It's not about trade with America, it's not about business with America, it's about starving and killing innocent men, women and children and destroying the infrastructure of Iraq. The (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: New Brickbay promotion
 
(...) And even if it were not derived from "Gypsy", as long as there is any possibility that people might be offended, it is probably safer not to use the term. "Renege", which is actually derived from the Latin renegare, meaning to deny, comes to (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) debate. (...) to (...) place (...) foreign (...) to (...) So if trade is bad, then shouldn't the Iraqis be grateful that they are sanctioned? Now they don't have to worry about American economic imperialists exploiting their labor and natural (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
 
TYPO IN MY PREVIOUS POST, PLEASE CORRECT: (...) I meant "I did NOT call LEGO collectors...etc" I mistakenly left out the NOT in that sentence. Let it be clear that I did NOT call LEGO collectors materialistic, greedy or immoral. Dan (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian Propaganda
 
(...) I mean dominating other nations through unethical trading practicing or harsh sanctions or expoitating human labor and natural resources of other nations. There's no morality in using force to "defend" our greedy business ventures and economic (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
 
(...) I said "whatever" because I sensed you had more to say on the matter, which you obviously do. Did I not say "everyone has their thing" and for collectors "to collect away and enjoy their collection"? How much more inclusive would you like me (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: New Brickbay promotion
 
(...) He is correct. From Dictionary.com: gyp also gip (jp) Slang tr.v. gypped, also gipped gyp·ping, gip·ping gyps, gips To deprive (another) of something by fraud; cheat or swindle. n. 1. A fraud or swindle. 2. One who defrauds; a swindler. (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian Propaganda
 
(...) In the good old days it was colonialism and empire building--theft and occupation of other lands and exploitation of the native people and resources. We can't do that anymore today, everybody is watching everybody, so we build an economic (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian Propaganda
 
(...) Heh. That reminds me of my favorite footnote... In the introduction to Struggle for Mastery in Europe, AJP Taylor says something about European diplomats of the time being generally honest. Then in the footnote, he says something like, "It is (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian Propaganda
 
(...) It's the COBOL equivalent (minus the nuances about pre/post incrementation) to ++Lar (increment Lar by 1 in C++) Try this then... 10 SET L = L + 1 (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
 
  Re: Libertarian Propaganda
 
(...) The meaning of alliance in 1914 was already different than that in the 1780s. The point in 1914 that caused the war was very simply and plainly--as several recent studies and unearthed documents have confirmed--that the German leadership (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian Propaganda
 
(...) <snip> (...) Well, yes and no. While it may be easier to project power now than then, it was already easier in 1914, and I would argue that entangling alliances made WW I flare up worse and faster than if it had been just Austro Hungary (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian Propaganda
 
(...) Yeah, I was hoping Gorman would get the nomination myself. Assasination is probably not something most Libertarians would agree with, and I'm sure it's not in the platform. I think his idea was to put bounties on people, like, $1 million for (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian Propaganda
 
(...) I hadn't realized that Libertarians endorsed state-sponsored killing of anyone, which would be the most likely source of this kind of assassination attempt (other than attempts internal to that nation.) In addition, Harry Browne is neither a (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian Propaganda
 
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes (...) As is the ability to keep tabs with one's home nation in microseconds rather than months. The reason I mention this, and the reason I basically reject the "entangled alliances" caution, is (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian Propaganda
 
(...) policies (...) and (...) Well, exactly what our national interests are is certainly a matter for debate. I was just saying that whatever we decide they are, it is fine to use force to protect them. But if by economic imperialism, you mean free (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian Propaganda
 
(...) Somewhat, yes. Largely? Not sure. Certainly the ability to rain defeat on your enemy 12000 miles away in a matter of a few hours is a major difference, though. (...) I don't give deific status to anyone or anything (other than, perhaps, (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian Propaganda
 
(...) But there's a reason that the past is in the past. The world as Jefferson (whose idea of property, by the way, included certain individuals who were not duly compensated for their labor in his service) perceived it is largely irrelevant to the (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian Propaganda
 
(...) Dan: Permit me to take a guess, both for clarity's sake and also to make sure that I understand what he's saying. He's referring not to the "inalienable" rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but rather the (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
 
(...) You said "whatever", suggesting that you didn't agree. I restated it in hopes that you would clarify if you do or don't agree that inclusiveness is good. (...) Not that you disagree with what? (...) Great, (aside from the loaded words) but I (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Which "libertarian" white supremacists were these? The viewpoints are totally incompatible. That's twice in this thread you've made this false connection. ++Lar (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Which "libertarian" white supremacists were these? The viewpoints are totally incompatible. That's twice in this thread you've made this false connection. ++Lar (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian Propaganda
 
(...) Economic imperialism, whatever that might be, surely doesn't fall within *this* libertarian's definition of what an appropriate national interest ought to be. Can you define what you mean a bit more? What I think Mark is getting at is that the (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Which compounds are these? I'm not familiar with any such "libertarian" compounds. ++Lar (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian Propaganda
 
(...) And what is our national interest, besides economic imperialism? (...) What are our national interests, besides economic imperialism? (...) Perhaps I misunderstand you, but are you saying that only Americans have rights, such as those of (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Idaho...?! I've been to Idaho, these folks don't offer much threat. Are you sure you didn't mean Michigan? Besides, most of the white supremacists I've come across tend to be John Bircher folks... Just helping you fan the flames... Cheers, - (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian Propaganda
 
(...) A good point with a debatable example. (...) Another good point, but it misses to a degree. People turn to violence when they feel disenfranchised for whatever reason - the Latasha Harlin/Rodney King one-two punch resulted in riots in Los (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian Propaganda
 
(...) As a card-carrying Libertarian, the foreign policy plank is probably the part of the platform I disagree with the most. Regardless of what domestic policies we persue (libertarian ones, I hope), our national interest doesn't change. Now, I (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian Propaganda
 
(...) It really annoys me when people clamor for a "smaller government." The first things to get cut are usually civil services, government publications, and the like. As an example, many years ago, the Coast Pilot division had some 25 or more (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  (canceled)
 
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) What "set McVeigh off" may well have been the paranoia which surrounds these events. You should not forget that McVeigh and those at Ruby Ridge had links with libertarian white supremacists. The fact that the FBI has been clumsy in the past, (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Isn't that supposed to be what set McVeigh off in the first place (Waco, Ruby Ridge)? (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
 
(...) I'm glad my "elaboration" was helpful, and I hope I am clear now. <snipped discussion> (...) Sounds good to me, but why do you feel it is necessary to repeat yourself? Are you sure you are not addressing me? Have I mocked someone or done (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
From my UK perspective, perhaps the best way to “prevent the next Timothy McVeigh” is to crack down on the over-armed libertarian (although some are also anti-semitic /white supremacists) "militiamen" compounds which populate hilltops in places (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian Propaganda
 
(...) I imagine Larry getting a new computer peripherial..."The Trouble Stirring Up USB 2.0 Ladle and Firewire (800MBps) Pot To Stir ™"...he hooks it up and thinks to himself ..ooOO{Now, where did I put that last LP e-mail?} 8?) (...) If you do (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian Propaganda
 
(...) Gosh Larry, I can't find anything there with which to disagree. JSA -- Green Bay Lacrosse-- Play hard; play often. (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
 
(...) As you should. I asked in order to try to understand, not challenge, your view. <snip elaboration> Thanks. Helpful. (...) I did say it, but not just to you, rather to all who read here. I'll say it again... Welcome all who come, whatever their (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Libertarian Propaganda
 
There isn't enough to debate around here these days ( grin) so here's some fodder. Rather than excerpting, here it is in its entireity. Note in particular point #3, which I think may be the most significant of the 5, although I'm rather fond of #1 (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Misnomer: we are all Lego collectors!
 
See below too! :) (...) I think it was a basic misunderstanding of what Bruce (who, trust me, holds LEGO in a regard few can hold higher) meant by "not a good collectible." You focussed on it as though he meant that it's not good; he meant that (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
 
Thanks Bruce, it's better to understand each other....right on. Eric (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
 
Thanks Bruce, it's better to understand each other....right on. Eric (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
 
Thanks Bruce, it's better to understand each other....right on. Eric (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
 
(...) I'll do as I please. If you want an explanation, here it is: Anyone with enough money can collect LEGOs. There's no talent or creativity involved. There's no artistry, skill or vision either. Collection is consumption. Consumption doesn't earn (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sorry Anthony (was Re: Lugnet has a problem) plz read
 
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Selçuk Göre writes: <snip> I assume (...) No you're not! ;-) And Tammy, by the looks of it, you didn't kill this thread either. Now it's my turn. /\/\ark - watching the 3724 watching him - de Kock (23 years ago, 12-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.castle)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more | 100 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR