 | | Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur —Scott Arthur
|
| | | (...) "may well" is not "is" (...) So you have no basis for *your* mudslinging??? Have you no shame? (...) Why do we want to stop hijackings? To protect life and commerce? Your proposal will not do the latter. (...) You were taking a principle to (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | (...) Why don't you people trim anything? (...) I didn't see this original note...that's not a bad idea actually! I think we need more nudity. :-) (...) Did you read _Diamond Age_? What about the goombah with the gun in his forehead? (...) How's (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Go to Iceland. They have that there. According to _Maxim_ (not the worlds most reliable source) anyway. (...) Implied right to privacy makes it unconstitutional for government to require it, I think. (anyway it's required to make the example (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | (canceled) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | What, no answer? (was a LP span thread) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) What, no answer? Scott A (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
