 | | Re: eBay's Auction for America
|
|
I did not notice John had set FUT OTD. I still think it belongs in LD. But, it is here now. :-/ Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
Why am I not surprised: "Under White House prodding, a House panel on Thursday approved legislation to further expand the government's ability to cut money flows to terrorist networks. A parallel bill is part of Bush's sweeping anti-terrorism (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Put up - or shut up.
|
|
(...) What, no answer? (...) Well, have you seen the light? (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What, no answer?
|
|
(...) What, no answer? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: eBay's Auction for America
|
|
(...) That is not my main point. My point is that by giving a little they will also gain. I did not view it as a 100% altruistic effort on their part. Further, if you take a look at the auctions you will see that I have bid on them (~$850 so far). (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: PA censoring journalists again, but repudiating bin Laden...
|
|
(...) I have no idea. I hope not. (...) I'm also surprised. Do you agree with it? Scott A (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
|
(...) Did I ever tell you a little story I heard about Tom? It goes like this ... :) Scott A (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cuba is a terrorist state (was Re: Any truth in this one - Cuba as a terrostist state.
|
|
(...) Do you have a reference for this? (...) The interesting thing about Libya is the hassle it got for the Pam-Am bombing over my fair land. It turns out that one of the accused was innocent and the second is appealing his conviction. I wonder if (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Ok, show me where I have lied? Or apologise.
|
|
(...) Larry you are going to have to answer this one, or withdraw your comment and apologise unreservedly to me on this forum. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) Rather than comparing it to coal plants, how about keeping it within the realm of transport? Most reasonable people accept that roads should be policed to ensure that they are safe where driver/owner safety considerations are concerned. Why (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Malcolm Forbes
|
|
(...) Your mind perhaps. "Education's purpose is to replace an empty mind with an open one." (...) If that is the case, feel free to provide the location of your answer. (...) ROFL. This is a SQUIRM. Is this really the best you can do? Have you no (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) Larry, this is a stark example of how your Libertarianism takes ideas out of context. You have some idea that rights and risks adhere to individuals. But that is no longer the essential principle in our present context. Rights have already (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Something slightly lighter?
|
|
I must admit, I was laughing out loud at this! Whew! I hope nobody picks on Dino Ignacio, the guy who initially made the doctored photo of Bin Ladin with Bert when he was running his "Evil Bert" website years ago. I still think it was a funny idea (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) would (...) choose (...) Then why did Klick make a point of it? The current service being provided (air travel) benefits the passengers and is already paid for by them (generally). The proposed service (enhanced security) does not only benefit (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) Doesn't matter who benefits. What matters is who is RESPONSIBLE. And that is the airlines. If they're not flying, no potential weapons... So the airlines should pay, or the passengers deriving benefit from travel and thus causing the risk to (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) is difficult to justify a situation in which fliers and non-fliers alike would be taxed to provide a service that primarily benefits the first group." Umm, how many of the victims were actually on the planes? How do you[1] choose who benefits (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) OK, thanks for that correction. I stand corrected. (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | More on Airport security.
|
|
This seems apropos. It questions the current federalization proposal from a different angle, the angle of who it is that ought to pay for it. (URL) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) Note that we're talking about drivers licenses here. I have seen LOTS of studies (and you could go dig them up if you wanted to, try starting at cato.org) about other sorts of licenses... all different kinds of licenses, showing inefficacy, (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) Well I COULD assert in all cases but it's not very provable, is it? (...) I'm suspecting not, since I don't know of any jurisdiction (similar enough to make meaningful comparisions, Botswana (if they didn't require them) doesn't count) that (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
