 | | Re: What the Confederate flag stands for. (was Re: Just wh...)
|
|
(...) should (...) Slavery was central but it was the secondary issue. The primary issue was the states right to secede, that is why the war was fought. Of course in this case the states tried to exersice their right to secede because the Federal (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What the Confederate flag stands for. (was Re: Just wh...)
|
|
(...) That's cool, but the bigger issue raised by your post was the claim that slavery was not central to the Civil War. I'd like to hear your further thoughts along that line of discussion, particularly in light of Stephen's comments. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) This is the exact same attitude most Europeans had regarding Germany in the early 1930s. (...) Actually I think supporting the war will cost him the election. (...) from (...) Actually no, I mean the United Nations (not just the US) should (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What the Confederate flag stands for. (was Re: Just wh...)
|
|
Ok this is in reply to all three posts following my original. I guess I should have been more clear. I was explaining why people still cling to the Confederate flag, not attempting to justify it. The line; "Today most people see the flag as a symbol (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Had france actually stopped them after occuping the Rhineland (which it could have done very eaisly at that point) the whole thing would never have happened. The German military at that point was weaker than Saddam's is right now. Instead the (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Are you crazy? Anything which does not support the war is "irrelevant" [see France, Nato, the UN, public opinion, etc]. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the "Hawks" are interested in rational thought! Scott A (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) Ya. I for one would LOVE to see some real investigative reporting into the theory that France is blocking things because they have lots and lots of business deals in the hopper that would go forward if sanctions are eventually lifted but which (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
|
|
(...) War? Troops sent in to fight? Was Clinton building up the forces, daring Saddam to 'slip up even just a little bit'? (...) I would if I could, but there's a tinpot dictator in charge of that country that, so the rumours go, is more of a (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What about the first?
|
|
After Turkey's invocation of NATO's article 4, one other article cries loudly that there can be no NATO support of US intervention in Iraq: (URL) 1 The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
|
|
(...) But then again, they can argue they were "balancing things up" after giving the Israelis the Bomb. Because they did that... just to spite the US! What the French were not expecting was Eisenhower's (?) change of ideas on the matter (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just when I keep on thinking that I'd have nothing else to rant about...
|
|
(...) When they vote against my interests, I'm happy to have them stay home if they like. I'd even arrange to have non-stop wrestle-mania to encourage them. :-) (...) They don't want lazy democrats worked up, black or otherwise. It'll give (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
|
|
(...) I don't even understand the question. Wasn't Clinton the best Republican president we ever had? The "Left" is not democrat. If you're going to go off into idiot-land, at least ask the intelligent questions. Bush is not capable of clever (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
|
|
(...) We bombed Bagdad with 500 cruise missles-- call it what you will. (...) We bombed Bagdad with 500 cruise missles-- would you call that "peaceful"? (...) Hmmm, We bombed Bagdad with 500 cruise missles.... (...) If you are referring to the (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
|
|
(...) Hey, I may be a self-serving hypocrite, but I'm no partisan! You ask a great question, which I've heard in a few other venues, and which bears a good examination. I'll offer what insights I can. 1. Immediacy: Milosovic was at the time of the (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: <snip> (...) Hmmm, let me search my faulty recollection--was there a war against Iraq in '98? Hmmm... not so much. Did the Democrats get some sort of peaceful worked out solution to the problem? Was (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
|
|
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. As I speak to you America's men and women in uniform, and our British allies, are fighting for security, peace and freedom in the Persian Gulf. They're doing an outstanding job, showing bravery and skill, making our (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dubya and Osama--Separated at Birth?
|
|
Noticed this news item: (URL) ? Dubya and Saddam have something in common too. Might they have been triplets? Duq "David Koudys" <dkoudys@redeemer.on.ca> wrote in message news:HA7CCq.J8D@lugnet.com... (...) to (...) of (...) the (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) Greg Palast on Blair: (URL) poodle on a leash?! -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) Complicated answer: At first, France's stubborness in getting heavy reparations was crucial to have them made *at all*; the Brits would have settled for the dismantling of the German and Austro-hungarian Empires, the Russians had their own (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: <snip> (...) Here's my inherent cotradictory nature--I love the B52! I had a model kit of one when I was a kid--it's a wonderful jet. Though, to be said, one of my fav. documentaries (barring the one (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just when I keep on thinking that I'd have nothing else to rant about...
|
|
(...) Politicians are in the business of getting their party elected (at a high level at least). I really don't think that it has to do with "racist bigots", but more with the fact that traditionally, blacks vote against GOP (I know, very bad gross (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) Maybe one of our friends from across the pond can help out here, but there's apparently a satirical stage play now running in the UK that's almost as farcical as the real-world farce playing out under Bush. I think it even has direct and (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just when I keep on thinking that I'd have nothing else to rant about...
|
|
You know, I never understood the Confederate flag's ability to still fly in any official capacity. I mean, race-issue aside, isn't it the symbol of a treason nation? A rebellion that was put down? Why wasn't it outlawed at the end of the Civil War? (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) Yeah, love the planes across the border--thanks! (...) Getting a bombed out, poor, defeated country to make reparations possibly wans't the best of ideas, but wasn't it more than just France that was liking this idea? (...) I just wish that he (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Just when I keep on thinking that I'd have nothing else to rant about...
|
|
Free country my heinie! (URL) and national Republicans had worried that a flag referendum the same day as the presidential election could spark a huge turnout by blacks and moderate whites and potentially affect the fortunes of GOP candidates, (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) Alone. And out of principles, at least until '41. One point for him :-) (...) Part that, but he also had the misfortune to have a stroke just as he was about to convince the Senate to join the SoN. In any case, the partition of Europe in (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) I pretty much figured all this, but I thought you might want an opportunity to explain further. :-) (...) I think the UN has do a less slacker-like performance in regards to its sanctions against Iraq if it wants to have any moral authority, (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) I believe *any* politician will do such, but some more than others (Dubya!). war? Seems to me an oxymoron. Justifiable, maybe - I suppose a war (...) Okay, I was being pendantic. But the resolution the UN passed made it look fairly legal (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) Have a look at this: ftp://voot.pair.com/...cheese.jpg [Note: “Yurp” is how Steve Bell represents Bush’s pronunciation of “Europe”] (...) ... or a least that's the way Bush can read it. ;) At the weekend we expect 500,000 – 1,000,000 to voice (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) Fomenting a war between Turkay and Iraq and then demanding that everyone aid in the war that they opposed being started in the first place will not be a feather in Bush's cap. All he will do is drive a wedge between us and the rest of NATO, (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) 4 Words: France, Israel Suez & Nukes. ;) Scott A (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dubya and Osama--Separated at Birth?
|
|
(...) I heard they were twins once before: The algebra of infinite justice (URL) who is Osama bin Laden really? Let me rephrase that. What is Osama bin Laden? He's America's family secret. He is the American president's dark doppelganger. The savage (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) It's the inconsistent foreign policy that I really want to see the end of. I was being a little 'over the top' to make the point, but it's like, "Hey Joe Schmoo, until you get your act together, don't bother coming out!" So yes, I was a little (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) Have I done that? Does public opinion amount to evidence of a threat? ;) <snip> (...) A very good point! (...) That's a little sad. Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) I saw a poll the other day (cited on CNN, but I can't remember the uber-source) that showed that about 45% of Americans believed that the Bush administration would intentionally falsify information to make its case, and something like 58% (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) Usually the list of Who The US Won't Sell To is the same as the list that France Will Sell To. Pretty much where there is a demand, there will be a supply. As to meddling, David (not Dave!), at what point should the US have stopped "medlling" (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) I think the U.S. public is becoming wary of Bush's motivation. They may not like Saddam Hussein, but the Al Queda connection is tenuous at the very best. (...) Those governments that support the US against the wishes of their citizens may find (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) I would certainly support that plan. Can we rely on our allies in France (for example) likewise to cease the sale of arms to any country that doesn't belong to France? (...) Sadly, this is hardly a US-only phobia. Other nations likewise have (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Dubya and Osama--Separated at Birth?
|
|
Game 1--You choose the power that said it! "The enemies we face are resourceful, merciless and fanatically committed to inflicting massive damage on our homeland, which they regard as a bastion of evil," says <Osama><Dubya> "In this war, there can (...) (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> (...) Oh please do! And while you're withdrawing your troops from non-US countries, please remove your diplomats, your meddling, and your arms sales from any country that is not yours. I (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) Small world. My family had a dog named Taffy when I was a child. Also, don't worry about becoming crotchety at 35. When I was 21 I was always telling my dorm mates to turn down their music. And I'm sure that if I had had a lawn I would have (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | astonishingly light? [Re: Its about time someone put this concept in print.]
|
|
(...) I can't see the wood for the trees! I found this page: Afghanistan War Produces High Civilians-Killed-Per...mb-Dropped Ratio (URL) passage: ==+== After surveying numerous reports on civilian impact deaths caused by bombing, I estimate the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) I agree with Frank on this point. The contract isn't exactly a property (well, the paper and ink are, and the IP that goes into it may be, but the contract in the sense that Frank means is merely an agreement. The agreement itself (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) Why would the value of the relationship change depending on who took it away? Do other pieces of property change their value depending on who takes them away? (...) I don't think that matches with what you've said earlier: you declared the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) I would say yes. To some extent this is already covered by divorce law. I'm pretty sure I've also read about cases where someone sued their ex for basically this reason. I'm not sure one would win very often, but there certainly are cases (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) So if my wife wanted to end our marriage, I should be able to sue her for loss of my relationship 'property'? Richie (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Capitalism (was: People are idiots...)
|
|
(...) I think that one must agree to either: a) because people have a right to exist somewhere, space/volume/area/land is not a good in the normal sense and we have to figure out what it is and how we handle it, or b) because space/volume/area/land (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) The box is already open. This proposed law is just reminding us that it is open. But we don't want to close it. Lawsuits are the civilized way of settling disputes. (...) But what basis do you use to hold the cat thrower responsible for his (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) No addendum needed, and mostly the system is already there. Judges do have a lot of flexibility. Unfortunately, over the years they have been given less flexibility. Also, countersuits already handle some of the problems. Mostly what has to (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes: <snip> (...) Now if there was an addendum to all laws that says "You will get slapped hard if we find that your lawsuit is frivilous", then I'm completely in support of said measure. However, who deems (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) Fundamentally, I see no problem whatsoever in animals having and being given property rights. As to what happens to the estate when Fido dies without issue? What happens when your kid who inherited your estate dies without issue? We have (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Capitalism (was: People are idiots...)
|
|
(...) I agree that existence is a property right (and truly the most fundamental one). This does imply a right to a place to exist. However, assuming that the resources of the universe are limited, clearly one doesn't have an unlimited right to (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) And I'm pointing out that we live in society more and more intent on a "Sue or be sued" mentality. So I was around 11 years olf. We had a dog named Taffy. Taffy was a wonderful dog who came to a very unkind end when some construction material (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) half measure. It is still true that only animals who have a steward that wants to push back will be remedied. So people can still throw flaming cats of highway bridges, as long as they're strays. (...) So you think that when a vet or a (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | WOMD [weapons of mass *deception*]
|
|
(...) Given that civilians were targeted in WW2, I don't see how the two can be compared? In Afghanistan, we had the ability to prosecute the intervention with far less civilian casualties [that fact that far less than 2,000,000 died is not a (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
