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 / *18991 (-20)
  Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
 
(...) Is it possible to move to an uninhabited planet and start all over? This planet has tangled property rights, but what about some other one? (...) Is it right to exist, or right to exist and be supported, or just right to try to exist and to be (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
 
(...) Buried in that other people aren't contributing their thoughts because they're too wrapped up in the more emotionally satisfying debates about unsolvable situations in the Middle East? Or buried in that _you_ are too busy in the other thread? (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
 
(...) Okay then, we can sweep the "It's all the Left's fault" verbiage aside. Desert Fox was in response to Iraq expelling the UN Inspectors, and the response was far less than the full-scale invasion that Bush is threatening as a unilateral action (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
 
(...) No, the situation is exactly the same. But we have the benefit of hindsight to see that Saddam was just jerking the UN inspections off during the Clinton Adminstration. And Clinton acted, and rightly so. (...) Brace yourself for his report (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
 
(...) Glad to hear it, because I read your post 3 times trying to make sense of it and giving you the benefit of the doubt:-) Basically, Clinton was in the same situation Bush is in now-- facing Saddam's non-compliance with UN resolutions. Clinton (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
 
(...) And I may add that there are two entirely different scenarios here--Blix hasn't once said that he was at an empasse. Sure there has been 'slow down' but he hasn't given up on the inspection process. Further, Clinton didn't invade Iraq with (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
 
(...) Whoa! That changes my answer, too. When I read it I thought it was for action against Milosovic, which I've also heard as a point of comparison to the present Bush frenzy. My assessment of the difference between the Milosovic ouster and the (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
 
(...) Apology accepted: (URL) circumstance was the announcement of Operation Desert Fox, beginning December 19th, 1998. JOHN (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
 
(...) It's not so much "American freedom" as "America". To many middle-eastern people, the US is synonomous with 'evil jerks'. Regardless of whether or not it's a justified assessment, that's what many think. I think the point was that people in (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
 
(...) Why don't you please note the actual speech, the actual circumstances and then we can compare and contrast it with Bush, instead of this partisan, self-serving attack? And why do I get the feeling that you lifted this "speech" from some (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Idiots, Part Deux
 
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes: I've lost my train of thought on this bit though. (...) Absolutely - I've been trying to find some spare time to get in on this one for exactly the same reason. I've tried to raise 'is land property' at (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
 
(...) The problem isn't that we are an open society that is vulnerable to terrorism, it is that there are those who choose to take advantage of that openess-- using freedom as a cowardly way of expressing their hatred and intolerance. (...) I don't (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Anyhow, who cares about tax liability in the US? [Re: Idiots, Part Deux]
 
(...) The "bubble" taught us that much. :( Anyhow, who cares about tax liability in the US? See: Enron 'bribed tax officials' (URL) report said Enron profited from 12 large tax deals from 1995 to 2001 that saved the corporation more than $2bn." If (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
 
(...) I expect part of the problem is that 911 has shown that the USA is both vulnerable and is part of a larger global community with real people in it. Your fellow countrymen have woken up to the fact that whilst they may feel that the USA stands (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Idiots, Part Deux
 
(...) Apologies Frank, I was actually enjoying reading this particular thread, though it be waaay over my head. I was looking for Locke, Kant, and Hobbes to chime into the thread, but alas... You are probably right about the other--the lines have (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Idiots, Part Deux
 
(...) It might be useful to distinguish individually-ascribed worth from market-ascribed worth. That $1000 bond may be "worth" $1500 to Buyer A, but if you go on the market and say "I'm selling this $1000 bond for $1500," you'll find out what the (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Idiots, Part Deux
 
(...) Yes, though a contract may be in place. I would tend to think that there is an implicit contract entered when the child is conceived. (...) Ok, point conceded. I've lost my train of thought on this bit though. Unfortunately this debate which I (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Idiots, Part Deux
 
(...) And I wasn't disagreeing with that. (I might actually, in the end, but I haven't found fault with his assertion yet.) I was merely speaking to the contract's nature, as Frank pointed out. (...) Except in another note, I asked about the ability (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
 
(...) East to say, but harder to justify. (...) None of that explains why Belgium and Germany share France's outlook. Nor does it explain why the French navy is currently on exercise with your own in the "Eastern Mediterranean". (...) I'm sure I've (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
 
(...) Quite interesting. He is plain wrong on some issues, but overall he raises some key points. The most pertinent is this: "Well, if there is a U.N. resolution backing the war in Iraq, and I don't doubt there will be, the average Briton is not (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

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