Debate : Search Results: all rights are property rights


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

Results 1401 – 1420 of about 12000.

Search took 0.01 CPU seconds.

Messages: Full | Brief | Compact

Sort: Prefer Newer | Prefer Older | Best Match

		Re: Gay Marriage
(...) Don't you? I mean, the way US laws are written, I believe there are rights provided to married couples that wouldn't be to anyone under something like 'civil unions'. Speaking of which, is that what you're advocating? If so, how would a 'civil (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

all, rights
(score: 2.080)

		Re: UN Gets it Right!
(...) I trust you do not mean that war crimes are constitutional? ;) (...) I'm sure many others would say Bush heading it would also be a "farce". After all, it is Bush's record on human rights which stopped him getting the ICC exemption extended. (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

all, rights
(score: 2.079)

		Re: Yet another argument in favor of privatized education
(...) It is stories like this which undermine the argument in favour of state regulation of certain private industries. I was reminded of this: "Better to abolish all regulations, consider everything as property, and solve all controversy by civil (...) (20 years ago, 10-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

all, property
(score: 2.079)

		Re: Fair use and allusion?
(...) No I'm not. Reread what you cited. "tends to suggest" is hardly Summarily Dismissed. Further, being wrong about an issue or cause is not the same as dismissing the issue or cause. I dismiss his opinions about issues (for valid cause since he's (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights
(score: 2.078)

		Re: Taking the bait (was Re: Fair use and allusion?)
(...) OK, The support needed is rather different, though. You need to support with logic that my characterisations of Moore somehow falsify what I said.\ I need to support by showing that Moore isn't factual, and that his assertions don't follow (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

all, rights
(score: 2.078)

		Re: Taking the bait (was Re: Fair use and allusion?)
(...) Because the willful choice not to support your argument is indistinguishable from forfeiting the argument, I accept this as your forfeiture. If it is not your intent to forfeit, then I invite you to support your argument, as you have demanded (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

all, rights
(score: 2.077)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) "no intervention" - the UN has repeatedly placed economic sanctions on countries for human rights abuses. "slaughter" is a loaded term. A nation has a right to defend itself from insurgents and rebels. A nation has a right to enforce its own (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights
(score: 2.075)

		Re: Keeping the Peace in Nablus
Hmm, I never knew you were a holocaust denying anti-Semite. As such you clearly have no understanding of the IDF’s (URL) Ethical Standards>: Israel has a principle that weapons and force can only be used for the purpose of a military operation and (...) (20 years ago, 18-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

all, property
(score: 2.072)

		Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
(...) My objection is to the use of the terms "activist judge" or "judicial activism" as short-hand subsitutions for actual debate. Too often Conservative pundits have decried judicial rulings as "activist" without presenting any legitimate (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

all, rights
(score: 2.072)

		Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
(...) Unless I'm missing something you're assigning a causative relationship between religious background and the commonality of "rights" and other(?) socio-legal constructs. In effect, you're saying that these notions of rights are demonstrably not (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

all, rights
(score: 2.072)

		Re: The funniest thing I've seen in months
(...) Well, um, I mean, uh... We're just talking hypothetically, right? None of us would ever dream of truly circumventing a protection of this sort? (...) Actually, I know people who know everything. I'm just the medium, like the pipe that carries (...) (20 years ago, 16-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

all, rights
(score: 2.071)

		Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
(...) Clearly. Article 3, section 2: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, etc." To abridge this function of the judiciary would indeed require an amendment. (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

all, rights
(score: 2.071)

		Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
(...) Don't forget anullment which is the Catholics' way of getting around that little religious entanglement. (...) Now, see, there you're just restricting the rights of the citizenry to break their solemn vows. That'll never fly (heck, in (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights
(score: 2.071)

		Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
(...) No problem! Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X - Powers of the States (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

all, rights
(score: 2.070)

		Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
(...) Last time I checked Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. They're not allowed to pass laws to prevent religious zealots from flavoring the law with their religious (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

all, rights
(score: 2.070)

		Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
(...) Truthfully? I'm not sure you can, in much the same way that it's currently impossible to disprove the existence of ET life in the universe. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of using unprovable statements to disprove other unprovable (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

all, rights
(score: 2.070)

		Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
(...) Can you prove that those ideals predate Judeism or the roots thereof? Show me some documented proof, not scientific theories. Even the great Stephen Hawking is recanting one of his most cherished theories today. (...) Just as the state's (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

all, rights
(score: 2.070)

		Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
(...) You know what, in my crazier moments I'd be happy to leave the definition of "marriage" to whatever non governmental sanctioning bodies wanted to sanction it, and they can define it however they like. As part of that leaving I'd then go (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

all, rights
(score: 2.070)

		Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
(...) So was I, but it appears to be white-supremecist propoganda, so... (...) Trumped by virtue of the fact that there were movements to include specific mention to Christianity (if not any particular denomination thereof), while there don't appear (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights
(score: 2.070)

		Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
(...) That's scientific theory. Proof requires that you can difinitively show that the opposite is not true. Science has thusfar failed to do so in regards to the metaphysical origins of the universe. (...) I can to the extent that we can trace the (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

all, rights
(score: 2.069)

More: Next Page >>