 | | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Me too. (...) I agree with this assertion too, all goods are created from resources, all resources come from this planet (ignoring meteorites as they are clearly ar a practically infinitesimal resource). Can we all agree on this? I think that (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What the Confederate flag stands for. (was Re: Just wh...)
|
|
(...) But it should be noted that the election of Lincoln was the catalyst for the war, despite the numerous other factors that seperated north and south. I can't recall any school teachers that said the Civil War was about freeing the slaves (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) It is so interesting to me that such obvious truths can go unrecognized-- I really believe that it is a reflection of blind partisanship. The Left simply cannot allow itself to see the plain truth-- the person of George W. Bush is too much of (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Hmm, interesting question. Some problems I see: - If the other planet has biological or sentient inhabitants, we would have to decide just what their rights are. Hopefully we would recognize them... - I would have a concern as to how (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Vague abstract debate that puts people to sleep?
|
|
(...) It may be just semantics, but I think it's hard to move forward in other realms without having a solid foundation. I know I have changed the way I do things, at least to some extent, as a result of exploring these semantic games more. (...) I (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Both. I have tried several times to bail out of .debate, but I've never really stopped reading. I do tend to skim some peoples posts, and I think I'm finally getting the self control to not respond to pointless debates, but I still read them. (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Read some history books, specifically the public opinion about how to make peace with violent and hostile nations in the mid 1930s. "Preserve the peace at all costs." Seriously the parallels between now and then are just plain scary. Do you (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What the Confederate flag stands for. (was Re: Just wh...)
|
|
(...) Contrary to what most school teachers teach childern, the Civil War was not primarily about freeing slaves. Freeing slaves was the secondary purpose behind the Civil War. Consider the most famous Confederate General, Robert E. Lee. General Lee (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Not a right to support (at least in any but the vaguest of senses) just a right to a place. In what I understand of libertopia, it would be theoretically possible for one person to buy up all the land and not allow anyone else to be there. (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Vague abstract debate that puts people to sleep?
|
|
(...) The whole "everything can be called property rights" seems so leaden to me. I won't argue it either way - it just seems like a game of semantics to me. What I could add is pendantic: Chris is right from a the single sale point on value, but (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
