|
|
 | | Re: LP POINT 2
|
| (...) One point at a time, sorry. But in the meantime, you can either apply first principles and derive your own answer, or you can read old threads, where something very like this was discussed, at length. Check your assumptions, though. They (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: LP POINT 1
|
| (...) Clearly state the question, please, along with your assumptions. In the absence, though... I've never claimed that the LP has massive support among the voting populace as a political party. If it did, we'd win a lot more elections than we do. (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Lets keep politics out of Lego
|
| (...) Not admitting defeat doesn't mean a debate hasn't been lost (or won). Sometimes the debate provokes further thought on the subject - and that's the place that people change their minds. Admit it, how many of you are second-guessing eating (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | LP POINT 2
|
| LP POINT 2 Larry If an individual were to find him/herself in your propertyist dreamland with no food, no water, no education, no money, no property and starving. What rights would he/she have? Which right would be strongest: 1. The right of the (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | LP POINT 1
|
| LP POINT 1 Larry, Can you please show me how wrong I am? Scott A From: (URL) > I liked this, it pretty much sums up my view of the LP: (...) So weak that you will not answer it? Show me this guy is wrong. Show me what the support for LP is. Show me (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
