 | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks
|
| | | (...) I don't think that asking questions, or even giving examples of situations that might give a particular idea problems can really be called potshots. A lot of the other stuff that's been flying around certainly could be. Richard (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo
|
| | | | | Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) too, (...) that (...) I should control myself, but I'm evil! (1) Sorry about that. Seriously, why don't you answer his question??? Or, was "more government spending" the correct answer? 1 - I admit, I am not (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) that (...) Certainly true. But I guess I'm a little frustrated by the way .debate is lately. It seems to be a few libertarians trying to explain how to make the world a better place vs. several times as many people saying "what if this, what (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Scott Edward Sanburn
|
| | | | (...) That is what I was thinking as well. (...) Interesting... (...) I am wondering, especially Matt Miller, view on rights. He keeps calling on them, but doesn't really say what he thinks. Scott S. P.S. Larry, I read most of the Libertarian (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
