Debate : Search Results: all rights are property rights

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

Results 1201 – 1220 of about 12000.

Search took 0.02 CPU seconds.

Messages: Full | Brief | Compact

Sort: Prefer Newer | Prefer Older | Best Match

		Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
(...) I think his point is not that we would _never_ protect American soil with a space based defense, but that we wouldn't be protecting the homeland from Iraq-launched Scuds. There are numerous reasons to build such a defense including: protecting (...) (25 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights
(score: 0.575)

		Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
(...) I don't need to twist things, I even showed you your own words exactly as you wrote them. (...) That's a distortion and misquote right there! I said I did cite your example indirectly but that I "respected your anonymity" by leaving your name (...) (25 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights
(score: 0.575)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) But that was just an extreme example of what I said. It was a starting point for distinguishing what you really think about the role of sovereignty in our war-decisions. Do you think that a nation can act to cause harm to its own population (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.575)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) In my experience, extreme examples do more to mud up the argument rather than cutting to the essence. The key issue is regarding WW2 and the Holocaust is that nation sovereignty wasn't an issue for either case (the war or the genocide). (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.575)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) In advance? Would you sign up for that? Or do you mean after the fact against people who were in already? I would tend to think (and I'm guessing here) that every new law (except basic common law, you can't dodge the prohibition against (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.575)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) I'm pretty sure this is maybe the most ignorant thing I've read in a month. I'm starting to think you're not able to have a friendly discussion about anything. No, I don't condone genocide. Did you really think I did? Regarding WW2 - the key (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.575)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) Much of which he did with US support. (...) Seriously, was he any worse in 2003 than some of the human rights abusers Bush supports today? I’m talking about countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan. Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.575)

		Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
(...) many cases, not all cases. So no, what you think I said isn't right. (...) Sometimes they are. Steve Jackson Games won a suit against the government I believe... The upside of small corporations is that it's possible to win against them. The (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights
(score: 0.574)

		Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
(...) I don't think such a company would really last terribly long. If their actions really had a wide impact, they would find quite an array of folks against them. And not all of the money to hire the lawyers to sue them out of existence will come (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights
(score: 0.574)

		Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes: [big snip] (...) effect (...) expense (...) to (...) Right. You can only bribe someone to exert power that they have. If they have no public power, there is no public concern. (...) All public (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights
(score: 0.574)

		Re: What makes a cool kid cool? (was: Re: A new area of LEGO.com: the Build section)
(...) I think you gave pretty good reasons. Probably would have been better to call it something like "kids doing cool things" or something like that, to avoid the implication that some kids are cool and some aren't. And if the model selection is (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights
(score: 0.574)

		Re: Bad day for individual rights
"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:Hzo4Gy.11KG@lugnet.com... (...) reading the (...) I guess the 2nd decision is more of a state's rights issue. But it should be an individual rights issue. Why do state or federal (...) (22 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.574)

		Re: A question of remembrance...
An addendum to my previous posts regarding the Israeli occupation: Although I have used the term "Palestinian" repeatedly to describe the Arabs of that area, I realize that there are certain inaccuracies with the term. The root word is (...) (26 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights
(score: 0.574)

		Re: A question of remembrance...
(...) Then for the 10th time, YES IT IS when the opinion is biased, gained from pro-Zionist media. What part of that do you not understand? Stop pretending that you are somehow open minded or unbiased about the Middle East. Name ONE Arabic newspaper (...) (26 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights
(score: 0.573)

		Re: A question of remembrance...
Hi Shiri, Alsalaam aleikum! Shalom! I genuinely appreciate the olive branch. :) I try not to generalize, but I'm guilty of trying a few shortcuts in my last post. It seems I unwittingly made a point about generalizations because most, dare I say (...) (26 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights
(score: 0.573)

		Bad day for individual rights
Hmm, a bunch of Supreme Court decisions today... (URL) (22 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.572)

		Re: UN Gets It Right!
(...) Yes. (...) Yes. (...) Yes, and ride on with our trusty sidekick Britain. (...) This is not possible and unconstitutional. (...) It is a farce, as exemplified by Sudan heading the human rights advisory council. One world order is a pipe dream (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

rights
(score: 0.572)

		Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
(...) When you are oppressed you retain your rights. There are only two ways to be rid of rights: to surrender them (dangerously easy to do by mistake), and to have them taken from you through due process as established by the US Constitution. I (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.572)

		Re: Only nations can generate patriotic pride (Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?)
(...) Disagree, see below. (...) I'd agree with that. Properly construed, government is a tool to protect rights. Improperly constructed, government is a master that takes them away. (...) Two points. 1, Perhaps there's a bit of cause and effect (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.572)

		Re: A Lego display fund raiser
(...) That is right. However, I have seen at least 3 people post saying that they are not 100% about MichLUG _as a club_ doing this show. This is not limiting your options, go form Mich_Cath_LUG if you really want to, that would acchive the same (...) (26 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights
(score: 0.572)

More: Next Page >>