Debate : Search Results: all rights are property rights


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

Results 1941 – 1960 of about 12000.

Search took 0.03 CPU seconds.

Messages: Full | Brief | Compact

Sort: Prefer Newer | Prefer Older | Best Match

		Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
(...) This seems problematic. The minute a crime is committed, presumably they have no idea whodunnit. So who exactly forfeits rights? And which ones? I guess I disagree. Among our rights (which are not forfeited even as a suspect) are due process. (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.977)

		Re: The big lie
(...) Correct. I don't want civil rights lessened or destroyed across the board. (...) I suspect you are reading things correctly, unfortunately. That doesn't make what happens "right" though, as I've said before, just because a majority votes (or (...) (23 years ago, 19-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.977)

		Re: Is the Palestinian Cause Dead? The Latest Terror Attacks
(...) I'm not sure I care who started it (1). What I do care about are the following points: - That we acknowledge that the Jewish people had cause to trust that no existing government would protect their rights. - That we acknowledge that the (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.977)

		Re: Capital Ideas
(...) Yeah, I can't see why Padilla can't be given his rights, due process, equal protection, trial by jury for treason, right to appeal, and then hung upside down by the short-hairs until he is dead either... I mean, the guy is an american however (...) (22 years ago, 26-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.977)

		Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
"Matthew Miller" <mattdm@mattdm.org> wrote in message news:slrn8sdf01.lvi.....bu.edu... (...) years (...) separate (...) rights. (...) Unfortunately, I don't believe I do. (...) Yeah, not worth it. I noted that before so that I could acknowledge it (...) (24 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.publish)

rights
(score: 1.977)

		Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur
Oh, and another thing, before you accuse others of calling names, you might want to avoid doing the same yourself, your subject line is a deliberate slur... unbacked by any fact (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.977)

		Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur
(...) Go to Iceland. They have that there. According to _Maxim_ (not the worlds most reliable source) anyway. (...) Implied right to privacy makes it unconstitutional for government to require it, I think. (anyway it's required to make the example (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.977)

		Re: Overview of Changes to Legal Rights
(...) For those of you who, like me, had trouble copying and pasting this link: (URL) William R Ward bill@wards.net (URL) Verbing weirds language. --Calvin (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.977)

		State department report on Saudi Arabia's Human Rights record
(URL) US is not papering over that SA is run by a bunch of thugs. Whether more will be done about it remains to be seen. (22 years ago, 3-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.977)

		Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur
(...) Why don't you people trim anything? (...) I didn't see this original note...that's not a bad idea actually! I think we need more nudity. :-) (...) Did you read _Diamond Age_? What about the goombah with the gun in his forehead? (...) How's (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.977)

		Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
(...) Yes. The Declaration of Independence is very much not the Constitution. In fact, interesting to consider that this language, so obvious in the declaration, is so conspicuously not in the constitution. (...) Yes. Foundationalism is nice, when (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.977)

		Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
(...) It should be noted that the 2nd amendment itself in no way addresses that its purpose is for the overthrow of the government or as a hedge against tyranny. (...) The "well-regulated militia" that opted to go its own way was the Confederate (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.977)

		Re: The Blood of Patriots & Tyrants (was Re: Sticking my gun...etc.)
(...) " A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." The 2nd Amendment. militia = free state. Do you see it now? I could waste my time looking up references in state constitutions too, but why bother? I have this (...) (21 years ago, 24-Sep-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

rights
(score: 1.977)

		Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
(...) The value of the dollar was once based on the value of gold. It is now based on absolutely nothing but the will of the people to keep it going. Similarly, our "inalienable rights" were originally based on the commonly-held mythology of a God (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.976)

		Re: UK Happy to sign European Convention on Human Rights (was Britain's bloody... (was When is...)
(...) What was the question? (...) What's the point of that. (...) Didn't say it did. Recall I said I didn't think Israel should have been set up in the first place. Recall that I said that it was the UK that caused this mess. You haven't answered (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.976)

		Re: Why not Both?
(...) Biblically - no human has any rights. Just like the laptop that doesn't work (sin), God's righteousness (no sin) demands that we pay for our sin. The only sufficient payment is death. Where that "leaves us" - is destined for eternal separation (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.976)

		Re: Gotta love Oracle...
(...) Laws, not regulations, ameliorate fundamental rights violations. If someone gets killed and an automobile is involved, there are some possibilities The auto was used as a weapon - this is murder and the law against murder is the thing to (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.976)

		Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur
(...) I'm not sure about that. It looks like the guy is a liiberterian (do you dispute that?) and that this bill may help catch the bad guys (do you dispute that?). Scott A (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.976)

		Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur
(...) On what grounds? (...) You are being silly. (...) I'm not saying that. I don't want to speak for Ed, but I don't think he is either. (...) 1. You are lacking logic. If Lego did not list those items but just give some $$ with no fuss, how would (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.976)

		Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur
(...) "may well" is not "is" (...) So you have no basis for your mudslinging??? Have you no shame? (...) Why do we want to stop hijackings? To protect life and commerce? Your proposal will not do the latter. (...) You were taking a principle to (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.976)

More: Next Page >>