 | | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) Honestly, it's hard to say. There's the rabid (and, frankly, fascist) campaign by the Bush administration to marginalize and demonize anyone voicing reservations about prosecuting this unjust war, so it's difficult to assess the actual (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) It could be argued that NATO and the UN are gaining respect in the international community for failing the follow Bush's line. Indeed, it is notable that a large proportion of the public internationally will only support a war which has UN (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:HA6Joo.M94@lugnet.com... (...) 8, (...) Parliament (...) on (...) asked (...) NATO (...) welcome. (...) This is how it worked when I was a little kid and wanted some icecream: Ask (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes: <snip> (...) That's right - he didn't mention the relationship at all - he made claims about contracts and agreements. (...) What 'property is involved involved in the relationship' is not my concern. (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) You mean they're less welcome at home than they are in Germany? ;-) Richie (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
This is awesome news... not only might this little war we're about to have finish up the UN as an active force, it might well do in NATO too. From the text of a speech by Senator John McCain (R., Ariz.) on February 8, 2003, at the Munich Conference (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) Chris wasn't saying the relationship is not propery. He was saying the contract is not a property, it is documentation of the agreement of what property is involved in the relationship and how to handle disolving the contract. Chris also added (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Capitalism (was: People are idiots...)
|
|
(...) Hmm, if land is not a good, then what rules should govern trading it? If you always have a right to some land as part of your right to exist, then what stops you from "selling" your land, and then demanding a land grant because you're now (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) I would agree with this refinement. It also better supports the idea that the wife terminating the relationship is different than a murderer terminating the relationship. (...) Right, it's not so much that the value of the relationship (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) No. There may be an agreement, but Frank said clearly in (URL) that "The relationships that make a family a family are property". The example of marriage may also have a contractual element which may also have value, but according to Frank's (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
