 | | Re: LP POINT 3.2
|
|
"Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message news:G4qp1v.87r@lugnet.com... (...) I don't think its that simple, but suit yourself :-) BTW - I'll assume that the 'you' there is a typo, where 'he' should have been there. (...) in (...) Second I (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Freedoms in Libertopia? (was Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne)
|
|
(...) Well, here's my point. I am all for personal freedom, but even in Libertopia we need to draw some lines. Hey, use all the drugs you want; it's your life to ruin. As long as you do it with the understanding that there won't be any free gov (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP POINT 1
|
|
<SNIPPED> (...) You may view this as a snipe, but it is more of a BTW. Co-chair the CATA Walfare Privatization research the the USA is Jose Pinera. Pinera was a former minister of labor and welfare in Chile (nice dish), - managed the privatization (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP POINT 1
|
|
(...) Read : (URL) key phrase: "Show me what the support for LP is. Show me it is a representative cross section of the US public." I then clairified: (URL) key phrase: "I'm interested in breadth - not depth. Show me that all socio-economic groups (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP POINT 1
|
|
Snip it all except the quote If you'd like to define the meaning of *this* (...) as that the LP (not small l libertarianisn) doesn't have deep, broad, election winning support in the US, then I would agree. However that's rather a smaller point than (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP POINT 1
|
|
(...) What is Gafla anyway... it is not in my dictionary. (...) Which came 1st, the egg or the chicken? One way to view Libertarianism, is that it is a good idea taken to its illogical extreme. Saying the world is moving towards libertainaism is, in (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP POINT 3.2
|
|
<tim's text zapped> Tim, Larry could have ended this days ago if you had just answered my points. He asked me to state them here, look down to "Sorry. Stipulate..": (URL) did stipulate (URL) failed to answer me, instead he cherry picked a point made (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP POINT 1
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes(heavily snipped): (...) **snip** (...) Sorry, Lar, but I think you've broken the duly established "gafla" limit for a single post. 8^) (...) Would that be sufficient for the LP? To have a (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP POINT 3.2
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G4qF2F.EyC@lugnet.com... (...) to (...) should (...) Lar- I'm pretty much in agreement with what you said in your post. And sometimes I dunno why I keep skimming o-t.debate. :o) So (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP POINT 3.2
|
|
(...) Sqirmity squirm. (...) "Directions"? ROTFL. (...) Sqirmity squirm. (...) I think it is. I welcome it. It is gratifying to speak with individuals who are interested in addressing the points... rather than the crowd. "The man who follows the (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
