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 / *19006 (-20)
  Re: What the Confederate flag stands for. (was Re: Just wh...)
 
(...) And whereas I'd be the first to be on-side with separating 'the stuff from the Stuff', would you walk around waxing poetically about the wonderfulness of the swastika in this day and age? For the sake of peace and harmony, and for the sake of (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: What the Confederate flag stands for. (was Re: Just wh...)
 
(...) Good for Lee. And his biggest claim to fame thereafter was having an orange car with welded doors named after him. As of March 21, 1861, Confederated Vice President Alexander Stephens obviously thought that slavery was a key issue in the war, (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: What about the first?
 
(...) For their absence, perhaps? The current European stance is not, like you say, "peace at all costs"; it's "this war is not needed now, the justifications are ill-explained" Mind you, many Europeans, including myself, would be a lot less (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: What about the first?
 
(...) Mike, You've proved my point. You thought Pedro's point was so "irrelevant" that you have chosen to talk about 1930's Europe instead! (...) Show me how scary they are then! Scare me into this war! Yesterday I read about this “myth”: The (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
 
(...) FACT: Iraq did not expel the UN Inspectors [some of whom were spooks] – they were withdrawn. (...) FACT: Iraq did not expel the UN Inspectors [some of whom were spooks] – they were withdrawn. (...) I doubt there is one, the recent OBL tape (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  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)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

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