Debate : Search Results: all rights are property rights


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

Results 3501 – 3520 of about 12000.

Search took 0.02 CPU seconds.

Messages: Full | Brief | Compact

Sort: Prefer Newer | Prefer Older | Best Match

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) Well, maybe this is a better hypothetical: What if the dominant nation (accepting, though, that the minarchist idea kind of trumps this) simply buys all territory surrounding the smaller nation and then charges the smaller nation a billion (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.323)

		Re: Reading in steep decline?
(...) I'm not particularly troubled. I hope to see the day when computers have fairly direct interfaces with meat. If/when that comes around, people won't read at all, really. Will that be a tragedy? I think this is just a sign of progress. On the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.323)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) Hey, you know, I always (well, not really always) wondered why they don't do that with those "Native American" casinos you see popping up all over the place these days. Apparently they're able to fight that sort of thing off. (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.323)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) From what I can tell, the consequences didn't really amount to much other than saying "Stop, or I'll say 'stop' again!" If the UN wants to be taken seriously, they need to stick to their own decisions, and follow up on their resolutions in (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.323)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) There's only one part of your answer that matters: "No". When talking about something being "just" or "unjust", we are not talking about the power to enforce that, and I'm not addressing that at all. So, no, Saddam doesn't have the right to (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.323)

		Re: Mormon bashing again
(...) Creationism is actually very scientific. Many secular scientists have become christians precisely because their findings lead them to the conclusion that everything is too complex to be accidental. I have a few books I could mail to you that (...) (25 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.323)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) I thought we were talking about the legitimacy, legality, moralness, and wisdom of the war. I was setting out to show via example, how this war was illegal. (...) No I didn't (this is sounding like a bad Python sketch). If action is justified (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.323)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) I was just starting a tangent to the current discussion--hence, 'here's a debatable subject'... It's a "Hmmm.." (strokes chin thoughtfully). That said, if you want an answer to your specific question--'can sovereign nations slaughter the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.323)

		Re: Sarcasm
(...) I think this might not be formatted quite right, I think you need to put the http:// part on the front or else LUGNET thinks it is a relative link (shifted to plaintext so you could see it, but go upthread and try clicking on it to see what (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.323)

		Re: Reading in steep decline?
(...) Err, do you forsee the computers of that day as more akin to the library, or the television? It could take the term couch potato to a whole new level. (...) Wild, but interesting speculation. It has all the makings of a really good SF book. (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.323)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) Can information penetrate this barrier? In that case pretty much any country with a sufficient(1) technology and manufacturing base should be OK (even if they're a net importer of food and raw materials now) 1 - I suspect defining "sufficient" (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.323)

		Re: Mormon bashing again
I suggest anyone who wants more insight into what the founding fathers intended, check out this site: (URL) particular reference to the posting of the Ten Comandments, here is one little quote from the article on relion: (...) To me this suggests (...) (25 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.323)

		Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
(...) Sorry, I can't help notice, Dave, that you left off the end of Larry's message talking about baiting. Also, I'm not sure that anyone else cares who is right, you or him, other than the two of you. I've watched the two of you get into it on (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

all
(score: 0.323)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) A dodge, but I'll go with the flow: then you believe that international law supports that any nation recognized by the U.N. is free to slaughter its inhabitants at will and no intervention is just? (...) I'll lay it out to you the same way I (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.323)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
These are MLF answers mind you, not my personal view which is a bit muddier (...) I suspect you're not going to do that but OK, I'll play along. (...) Check. (...) Check. (...) Not legitimately directly from other countries. Only from privateers who (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.323)

		Re: Sarcasm
(...) From the internet. <www.cogsci.princeto...-bin/webwn Sarcasm: witty language used to convey insults or scorn>. Hee, hee. Don't know how I could have missed the insults and scorn. But you're right, I'm wrong. I see you are a funny guy after (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

all
(score: 0.323)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
Jeez, did everyone take angry pills today? I think Bruce's point is pretty clear. You asserted that our invasion of Iraq was bad (illegal, unjust, whatever) because it violated the sovereignty of Iraq. Bruce is asking you (and now DaveK) if there (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.323)

		Re: Reading in steep decline?
(...) Various unorganized thoughts: --While web surfing does involve a lot of reading, this is generally in very small bites, distracted by a lot of colorful eye-candy. It's like the contrast between USA Today and the New York Times. Reading books (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.323)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) The US didn't invade Iraq because Iraq was breaking US laws, though. The justification for the invasion was because Iraq had failed to live up to the sanctions imposed on them by the UN after the Gulf War. The UN set a deadline by which time (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.323)

		Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
(...) Indeed it was, but you wholy missed the point in your zealous rush to criticize me yet again. I wasn't objecting to your use of my own words, but to your callous treatment of my statements by way of making a big public show of ignoring them. (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

all
(score: 0.323)

More: Next Page >>