Debate : 7447


Off-Topic / Debate / 7447

LP POINT 1 —Scott Arthur

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: LP POINT 1 —Larry Pieniazek

(...) 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: LP POINT 1 —Scott Arthur

(...) 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 1 —Larry Pieniazek

(...) 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 —Scott Arthur

(...) The libertarian claim to benefit all society... not just the poperty owning part of it. (...) So you have to be cruel to be kind... I see. So, how long would it take? How many would die? How much would crime rise by an the short term? (...) No (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP POINT 1 —Scott Arthur

"Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message news:G4p2uy.KL2@lugnet.com... (...) who were (...) America's (...) neo-Victorian (...) Oregon (...) one, (...) the one (...) me what (...) the (...) populace (...) not (...) hit (...) seems (...) (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP POINT 1 —Larry Pieniazek

Repeating the original cite and with much snippage of multiple quotes, irrelevancy, signatures, etc (the interested reader knows how to follow references upwards, or should), as always: (...) I'll repeat my analysis of this theme (that (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP POINT 1 —Scott Arthur

(...) Nope. Read it again. His assertion is that as America is an egalitarian society, it rejected the LP. Basically his point is that egalitarianism is at odds with the LP. As you well know, the point I raised referred only to the range of support (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP POINT 1 —Larry Pieniazek

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 —Scott Arthur

(...) 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 —Scott Arthur

<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 —Dave Schuler

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 1 —Scott Arthur

(...) 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)

Gafla (was: Re: LP POINT 1) —Charles Eric McCarthy

(...) I think it is the stuff you get when you try to make Lefsa but you don't do it right. /Eric McC/ (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gafla —Dave Schuler

(...) I thought it was botched pigLatin for "flag" Dave! (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Gafla —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Sorry, I can't provide a provenance for it. I can't even remember if I coined it or heard it from someone else. The meaning's clear from context, I hope. If not, ask away. ++Lar (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Gafla —Dave Schuler

(...) A general web search brought back a number of sites about college sporting events between GA and FLA, but that's not quite keeping in your context. Dave! I grok gafla! (with apologies to Heinlein and Pieniazek) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Gafla —David Low

(...) Noticing it (out of context) the first thing that came to mind was "Get A F[laming] Life Already". As in the perennial non-AFOL putdown, "Can you stop playing with a child's toy and gafla!" Of course there is always the AFOL reply, "Sure I (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Gafla —Dave Schuler

(...) Wait a minute... I think you mean ghafla, the gadfly distraction (according to Fremen). I knew I'd figure it out before too long. Though I don't know whether or not I knew you were a fan of Herbert. (14 years ago, 19-Feb-10, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)

Re: Gafla —Bob Parker

(...) Now wait a minute...I've been accused of thread necromancy over at classic-space.com in the past, but replying to a thread whose last post was 9 years ago (28-Nov-00)!?!? You sir, win this round ;^) (14 years ago, 19-Feb-10, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)

Re: Gafla —Dave Schuler

(...) LOL! As it turns out, I'm reading Herbert's Children of Dune for the first time, and the term "gahfla" is clearly defined about halfway through the book. For whatever reason, I immediately remembered the term from OT.FUN and thought that it (...) (14 years ago, 20-Feb-10, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)

Re: Gafla (was: Re: LP POINT 1) —Selçuk Göre

(...) I can't find "lefsa" in anywhere, too..:-) Selçuk (24 years ago, 29-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gafla (was: Re: LP POINT 1) —Scott Arthur

(...) It is not in my dictionary either. However, a web search suggests it is a Scandinavian potato dish. :/ Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 29-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gafla (was: Re: LP POINT 1) —John Neal

(...) Lucky you;-) -John (...) (24 years ago, 29-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gafla (was: Re: LP POINT 1) —Jason Maxwell

(...) I second that. Jason (who's not looking forward to the traditional Christmas Eve Swedish dinner...) (24 years ago, 29-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP POINT 1 —Larry Pieniazek

The usual massive and capricious snippage. (...) I'm not sure I'd agree that the degree of change (since the enlightenment, or more specifically, in the last 20 years) is that small. Certainly it's not as large as I'd wish it but it's a lot more (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP POINT 1 —Scott Arthur

(...) You are, off course, assuming a linear scale. I'd view it as logarithmic. (...) One of the big criticisms of the LP argument is that they harp on too much about the evils of "Big Government", without tempering that sentiment with a reflection (...) (24 years ago, 29-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP POINT 1 —Scott Arthur

<cut> (...) Opps. I forgot to say, that fact the LP would stop me from switching the lights on in my own house, is not the only problem I have with it, or libertarianism. Most of the rest evolve from what we discuss here: (URL) And I already told (...) (24 years ago, 29-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP POINT 1 —Larry Pieniazek

(...) and doesn't have the currency symbol problems. I haven't done the research to tell what's real but I don't like the sound of it at all. I'm ready to move on to point 2 if you're ready to concede that the original statement by the NPR wannabe (...) (24 years ago, 29-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP POINT 1 —Scott Arthur

(...) If you rummage around, you’ll find that there are plenty within the LP who voice decent at every thing from your sign up clause (“I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”), to (...) (24 years ago, 30-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Can you check that for a possible missing word? I read it a few times and haven't grokked it yet. Thanks! Maybe it's a UK turn of phrase? "voice decent at"?? (...) I'll give it a brief once over later today... you already know what I'm going (...) (24 years ago, 30-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Scott Arthur

(...) I have now corrected my spelling. (...) Yes. Naturally, just because it can be copyrighted does not make it right to do so. I think inventions and formulations can be copyrighted/patented to protect “investment” of time / money – otherwise (...) (24 years ago, 30-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Changed it, anyway <grin>... I now interpret that as "voice dissent at", and now I get it. Recall the question Maggie asked about libertarian views on abortion? She was surprised at that informal unscientific poll result showing division of (...) (24 years ago, 30-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Scott Arthur

(...) I suppose I approve of the system I work in - I don't profit from it though. (...) This reminds me of an article I was reading the other day. In 1997 USA tax at ~30% of GDP (1999 GDP / cap = $34k) whilst in the UK is was at ~34% (1999 GDP / (...) (24 years ago, 30-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Larry Pieniazek

(...) <emphasis> (...) </emphasis> But, oh what the heck... (...) Not sure it's an apples to apples. I can argue it the other way round... rather than the 4% of GDP difference giving you free healthcare, free education and welfare support... (...) (24 years ago, 30-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Scott Arthur

(...) It appears I have dug myself a hole. GDP is not a measure of happiness – it is only a measure of the domestic output of a nation. If wealth were uniformly distributed, then it could be used as a measure of happiness – but it is not in the UK, (...) (24 years ago, 30-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Happiness is hard to measure, especially in the aggregate. GDP is at best a wildly imperfect stand in, but I'm not sure there are better ones. (c.f. economic theory of law that you turned me on to) (...) Not sure what to make of that, not even (...) (24 years ago, 30-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Scott Arthur

(...) Yes, but your economy may be cooling - we have been at about that for a few years now. (...) Yep... and there are those in the UK who want us to join NAFTA and leave the EU :-/ (...) Yes, but in the UK/EU we are far less materialistic (I am (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Without getting into the question of which is better, it nevertheless still begs the question of why. WHY are you less interested in fun toys? Is it proper for a government to arrange its affairs so that people HAVE to be less materialistic to (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) And even if you do like it, what gives you the right to foist it off on your fellow? If you want your life out on public display, that's fine. But why force my life to follow along? Now, my stance that that government should stay the heck out (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Scott Arthur

(...) I'm not sure we they do. We have a different culture from you - we need less materialistic comfort. I suppose most of it harks back to our class structure. In the UK, most of my countrymen aim to rise up the class structure. Being (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Why is that? I think that basically everyone who wants to can even now. Certainly the move to Libertopia would not change that. (...) But you would have more to invest back into your society _and_ you would have the ability to choose how such (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Scott Arthur

(...) OK, if an individual were are the bottom of the social/economic ladder in the US - how could they buy an axe to chop down the tree? Who's tree would they chop down? How would they get to the tree to chop it down? What would they weave cloths (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I think so. Let's get more hypothetical, then (is it possible to be more or less hypothetical? I think so)... Suppose that I could provide you a society in which non governmental systems were providing everything, EVERYTHING, you wanted to (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Scott Arthur

In my sytem I have the right to free education. In my sytem I have the right to free healthcare. In my sytem I have the right the right to social provision. In my system a starving man has the right to food. Is that not utopia? Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Assuming those are true (that things are "free"), Dunno. Are there any downsides or hidden costs? I of course hold there are no utopias per se. But suppose, readdressing my question if we could, that I could give you a system that delivered (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Scott Arthur

(...) If by "intrusion", you mean things like my doctor making sure I'm not abusing my kids - no. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) As much as you want? (...) No matter the cost? At maximum quality? (...) I don't know what that means. (...) All kinds? (...) It is not. In your system, do you have the right to multiple wives? Prostitution? Recreational drugs? What about (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Scott Arthur

(...) I have had free education - pre-school to PhD. (...) Note quite, but that is the aim. (...) I suppose you'd call it "Welfare". (...) Nope. But nobody should be allowed to starve. (...) I don't want it. (...) I don't need it. (...) I don't need (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) What if you wanted more education? And how did you afford to eat and stay out of the rain while pursuing your free education. (...) "Not quite" implies that it's close. From what I understand, it isn't. (...) Meaning free beer and smokes? (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Scott Arthur

(...) The state paid my to be a student. Not very much, but enough to mean I could concentre of my studies - rather than flipping burgers. (...) It is not perfect - I agree. But the NHS is a highly respected orginisation in the UK. The poeple who (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Larry Pieniazek

(...) And mine. But it wasn't a really really bad dodge, merely a minor one, I'm not too upset about it. Scott, I can restate it if you want to try answering yes or no, but I think most of us know the answer already. However I don't want to put (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Scott Arthur

(...) I do not conceed that that is a victiless crime. I'm sure their are "happy hookers", but a good deal of them are being exploited. (...) They are not _my_ values - they are those of the society I live. In your LP dreamland you impose your (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Many people are "exploited" if you define it widely enough. Isn't being an employee exploitation? Actually, weren't you being exploited by the system when you were going to school for free? You were being incented by the masses to behave in a (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Scott Arthur

(...) Marx said so. (...) It could be argued I exploietd the system could it not - that is your normal perspective. (...) Education is exploitation – what a novel way to reduce your tax bill. (...) Why not prosecute all involved? (...) I must be a (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) But what do you think? (...) Oh, I think it's a two way street. That's why there's nothing wrong with it. When you're an employee, you're being exploited because someone is (traditionally) making money from your labor. But you're exploiting (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Scott Arthur

(...) That sounds more like symbiosis than exploitation? (...) How objective. (...) That is just what I meant by "all" (...) "too"? Are you making assumptions about my subconscious? (...) In your opinion. (...) This is where we started. (...) If I (...) (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Christopher L. Weeks

Now I know exactly what Larry means when saying that all you do is snipe. In your earlier posts, you lured me in by saying enough to trick me into believing that you were interested in talking about it. Now, the best I get is one liners. (...) And (...) (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Scott Arthur

(...) It is because I'm getting bored with your dislike of democracy. Bored. After I read your last post I remembered this point: "Democracy is just an euphemism for mob rule, where two lions and a sheep vote on the dinner, and there should instead (...) (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Why then, instead of wasting our time, not just say "I'm bored with this, I'm not going to participate any more, but I didn't want to just disappear" or something? (...) When you do, what does that mean? It seems from the way you use the term, (...) (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Scott Arthur

(...) You admit to being angry / bitter and use terms such as theft... it is difficult to take your argument seriously as it sounds so subjective. (...) I did before... that is why I said "This is all very circular." (...) It is not an important (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) it (...) Um, well, I think most people get angry sometimes. That doesn't mean that they can't be objective. And is it your contention that the use of the term 'theft' is a clear indicator of subjectivity? I have yet to hear you or any other (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Charles Eric McCarthy

(...) I'm not calling myself a liberal, but to address this would require that one knows what you mean by taxation and thievery. I agree that taxation without representation is thievery, but I doubt that is what you are saying. What if there were a (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) address (...) I (...) OK. That seems fair. I started to just answer, and then I went and looked tax up in m-w. It says that a tax is "1 a : a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes b : a sum (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Scott Arthur

(...) I'll answer this once search is working again. (...) I'd argue that it is more important that a society ensures its citizen has the right to shelter & sustenance... before any other right. In your dreamland, those within it have all sorts of (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Is land a good? (was: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 ) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I think I get it (or at least part of it). You are envisioning the scenario in which (just as an example) a person has no wealth at all, and those with wealth prevent him from obtaining any. Or even worse, fail to yield a place for him to (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) out (...) Do they do that for everyone or just a few? If you wanted more education would it still be free and would they still pay your survival fees? What if you wanted to study abroad? (...) This started because you claimed to live in (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Scott Arthur

(...) Everyone. (...) If I was from a low income background it would be free. Other wise, I'd have to pay a notioanl amount towards my degree (phd & school education would still be free). (...) Free inside the EU. (...) Understament. Americans do (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Wow. Why isn't everyone a student? I've been searching for an angle to allow me to go back to college and just stay there. Being a professor seems pretty good, but I'd rather just be a student forever. (...) Nifty! (But not Lar's kind of (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Kevin Wilson

Scott A wrote in message ... (...) stay (...) could (...) It used to be that students got grants to go to uni in the UK, but I thought that now (I have been away for nearly 20 years, so I'm going by what I hear from family still living there) that's (...) (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Scott Arthur

(...) I was talking about when I was a student. I think in an other of my posts I say that the system is now means tested. However, even children of high earners pay only a token amount towards education (a ninth). (...) Not now, they are in bed (...) (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Tom Stangl

(...) When I was working at a Krogers in college in the Seafood dept, I had several people ask me if food stamps could be used to buy lobster. I also saw people buying sirloin with foodstamps. Why should someone that is on foodstamps be able to eat (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Dave Schuler

(...) Testify, brother! I worked at a 7-11 some years ago, and a new car with the factory sticker on it pulled into the lot. Out climbed a guy in an expensive and new-looking suit, and he came in and bought his candy bar with foodstamps. On the (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) They would get a job. They would buy cheap land (at ~$200 per acre!). They would buy startup supplies including axe and loom. What's so hard about that? Most of the so-called poor in America have it great (when compared to the poor in truly (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Scott Arthur

(...) What if they can’t get a job? What if 50 million Latin Americans flood your labour market? (...) Sure... and the rich are not really rich when compared to the super rich. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 —Tom Stangl

(...) Side point - ARE NOT! Otherwise, you'd stop buying Lego ;-) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP POINT 1 —Scott Arthur

I have made my point with this. My assertion was that that the LP is not supported by a broad cross-section of the US public. We agree that its support is from the "haves" not the "have nots". Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP POINT 1 —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) How do you define the haves and have nots? My father is the first generation of college educated people in his line and my mother is the second. They grew up lower middle class. (My grandparents were: an electrician, a secretary, an elementary (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)