Debate : Search Results: all rights are property rights


Off-Topic / Debate / Search Results: all rights are property rights

Results 1181 – 1200 of about 12000.

Search took 0.02 CPU seconds.

Messages: Full | Brief | Compact

Sort: Prefer Newer | Prefer Older | Best Match

		Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?))
(...) Hi Frank, Actually, the reasoning for why your property is safe while I'm in your apartment falls under both my contract and aesthetics categories. When I refer to contracts in a broad sense I don't just mean reams of legalese with hundreds of (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights, property
(score: 0.619)

		Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
(...) I think it's more accurate to say that our founding fathers believed rights to be inherent to some people, but they had no problem in accommodating slavery and the denial of women's suffrage. These aren't trifling matters, either--the founding (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

rights
(score: 0.619)

		Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
(...) You ripped that sentance totally out of context, and by doing so totally failed to add anything new or even contradictory to my original statement as a whole. Let's look at the key points of the original text: (...) I accidentally left a word (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

rights
(score: 0.619)

		Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
(...) I'm guessing it would have to jump the hoops again. Maybe opinions on the law changed in the meantime, and it wouldn't have passed after being made constitutional. (...) Ex Post Facto applies, preventing him from being punished according to a (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.619)

		Re: Politicians allowed to veto use of news footage?
(...) Not in the US. At least not any that I've ever heard. Once you're deemed to be "in the public eye", you lose a lot of your privacy rights while in the public view (they can't sneak into your house, but they might be able to get away with (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

rights
(score: 0.619)

		Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
(...) That's true, of course--they were distinct individuals with distinct ideas. My intent, though, was to show that the document they brought to the table allowed the denial of rights to certain groups for the most mundane and terrestrial of (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

rights
(score: 0.619)

		Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
(...) False. I know you're a big states' rights guy. Actually, I am too. But one of the things that these sections of the constitution do is spell out limitations on the federal and state governments. The supreme court has supported that the rights (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

rights
(score: 0.619)

		Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
(...) You are missing something. Just because a "right" is not universal does not mean it is therefore exclusive. I cannot deny that the US Constitution could have come out of another religious background, but I can deny that it actually did. You (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

rights
(score: 0.619)

		Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
(...) I believe he only bought the publishing rights, not the copyright. But that's not really relevant to the Ldraw discussion, so I've Futted to debate. ROSCO (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.618)

		Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
(...) Well, I disagree on both counts, but I'm sure you're not surprised! 8^) I think that, as the proposed alternative to the existing system, Libertopia must provide the burden of proof that its notion of the fully free market won't result in the (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, property
(score: 0.618)

		Re: Rolling Blackouts
(...) I concede that I painted the geography of the region with too broad a brush, though I certainly meant no offense and I apologize if any was taken. I understand that the variety of landscape, vegetation, and climate, as well as proximity to (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, property
(score: 0.618)

		Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
(...) Where'd you get that? I'm more concerned with whether it's constitutional for the federal government to do something than whether the states should or should not be the final authority. If the federal government wants to pass an ammendment (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

rights
(score: 0.618)

		Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
(...) Well, I suppose that it is the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of Not-Rights? ;-) -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

rights
(score: 0.617)

		Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
(...) I'm not seeing where that description of linkage rules out a similar linkage with another willing partner, although I'd grant that it does rule out the partmer being the same gender. I'm also not seeing the relevance to constitutional rights (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

rights
(score: 0.617)

		Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
(...) Yep, you've just lost any sense of moral ground--"let no man separate". As long as "man" is separating, you've got nothing. Get rid of divorce (man separating the covenant that 'God joined'), get rid of adultery and coveting, and then we may (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.617)

		Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
(...) <snip> (...) It's amazing that I just agreed with everything that was stated by Dave! You cannot have sexual discrimination in laws. A law forbidding same-sex marriage is sexual discrimination and takes away rights from individuals. Dave K (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.617)

		Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
(...) "Activist judge" = "Hitler"? This is big, Dave! I think you are underestimating the arguments against legislating from the bench. I'm curious-- how would you respond to an act of congress that went something like this: "The courts are not to (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

rights
(score: 0.617)

		Re: A question of remembrance...
(...) First, no apologies are necessary. You obviously have some things you wish to express. (...) To be honest, I don't support much of anything outside of U.S. borders. I want to mind my own business in relation to my neighbors, and I want U.S. (...) (23 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, property
(score: 0.617)

		Re: A question of remembrance...
(...) Oh, now thats a solution. By that generalization, I belive almost NO ONE in the world has any right to live where they live. I doubt ANY population in the world can be documented to be living on land they didn't take from someone else (and in (...) (23 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, property
(score: 0.617)

		Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
(...) The proof will be in the pudding. If the Lefties try and challenge (URL) the DOMA> under the 14th Amendment, then their agenda will be clear, and only a new amendment to the Constitution will protect States' rights for self-determination. The (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

rights
(score: 0.616)

More: Next Page >>