Subject:
|
Re: Reagan... not exactly libertarian, but close
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 2 Apr 2000 16:57:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
364 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> Lines
> and circles really are too simplistic - I wonder if three-dimensional
> representations are adequate.
Well I clearly think that a 2d is better than a 1d whether closed form or
open... whether more than 2 dimensions are needed is unclear.
But libertarians introduced more dimensions precisely because we don't FIT on a
1D... we're not modern right-conservative nor are we modern left-liberal and
we're certainly not *moderate* (unless "radical moderate" counts :-) ).
I have seen the two dimensions labeled differently than they are on the current
quiz.
If more than 2 are needed, what would your axis labels be, Bruce?
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Reagan... not exactly libertarian, but close
|
| (...) Haha! I like that one! There is an essential truth to it. But once again, you are ascribing to Clinton what in truth many politicians are guilty of. Bush / \ Liberal Conservative That's the picture GWB gave at the start of the campaign. When (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
58 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
