 | | Re: LP POINT 3
|
|
One point at a time. I'm not willing to invest more of my free time in teaching singing at this point. (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP POINT 2
|
|
(...) This is an easy one Larry - One or Two, whats is gonna be? Would a starving man/woman have a right to food? Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | LP POINT 3
|
|
4 Quick Questions: 1. Race Under libertarian principles, would one have the right discriminate against others based on race? 2. Slave Under libertarian principles, would one have the right sell oneself into slavery? 3. Regulation Would medical (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP POINT 1
|
|
(...) I'm not sure what that phrase means, exactly. It seems pejorative and seems to (along with phrases like "cramped, Victorian") show the speaker's bias and tendency to want to use ridicule instead of critical thinking. But I don't believe I (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP POINT 1
|
|
(...) That is not the point of my point: "Show me it is a representative cross section of the US public." I'm interested in breadth - not depth. Show me that all socio-economic groups support the LP in a broadly representative manner - show me it is (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Lets keep politics out of Lego
|
|
1. 1st I had to state my arguments - you refused to answer them. 2. Then you asked me to raise one point at a time - you refused to answer it. 3. Now I have to raise a single point at a time, and start a new thread for each. You _really_ are (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) Not sure I understand the question-- are you asking me why I would still make it a crime to drive a vehicle under the influence of drugs? Because if you are, then you are more obtuse than I thought. -John (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lets keep politics out of Lego
|
|
(...) Every catholic - perhaps. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lets keep politics out of Lego
|
|
(...) I (mostly) disagree. Of course part of my agreement is that in a way you are right, very few arguments are ever "won". But this group can and has been the catalyst for changes in opinion. I have certainly changed my opinions (and you can go (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Parental strategies? (was: Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne)
|
|
(...) Uh, we don't know that... (...) And you do? Please enlighten, but first please cite your source of this understanding. (...) I think he's shown how to get your kid to call you by your first name, that's about all. (...) Uh, we don't know (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lets keep politics out of Lego
|
|
(...) According to my understanding of Catholic doctrine yes, or effectively yes. If a Catholic wishes to refute this, I'd welcome a response. My understanding of Catholicism includes the following points: 1. The pope is the leader of the Catholic (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lets keep politics out of Lego
|
|
(...) Web interface doesn't support it so I have to manually ignore... :-) Dunno what Scott's reasoning is. (...) This is an excellent summation. He won't do research, I won't do it for him, he won't stop sniping, and I will not answer every snipe. (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) By which I you mean, I imagine, a dictionary that agrees with your definition. Fair enough, but I think you haven't found such a dictionary yet. Even that "not screwed up" dictionary identifies the verb form of "to blame" as: 2 a : to hold (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lets keep politics out of Lego
|
|
(...) It way well be obvious to you. But many economists accept that there is no reason to think that the market will always work. From what I read of Larry's friend, Hayek, on Friday I know he was one of them. I understand Larry has an (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
If you look at www.m-w.com for the verb form of "blame", you will find a dictionary that is not screwed up. "John Neal" <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message news:3A11ED4A.689B2C...est.net... (...) designation of (...) can be (...) population." (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
