Debate : Search Results: all rights are property rights


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

Results 6001 – 6020 of 11764.

Search took 0.02 CPU seconds.

Messages: Full | Brief | Compact

Sort: Prefer Newer | Prefer Older | Best Match

		Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) <snip> I really don't know if I should post this link, first of all 'cause of the bad language factor, and it has to do with a little video game I play (yeah, my other hobby that takes (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.260)

		Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
(...) What part of this is becoming a Monty Python routine didn't you understand? The automatic gainsaying of whatever the other person said isn't an argument. You offer no support for your statements, while you leave support for mine right there (I (...) (22 years ago, 27-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.260)

		Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
(...) How so? There was an election, the results were certified, challenged in court, and allowed to let stand. You may not agree with all the various court decisions made by various courts(1) but it's a bit of a stretch to say he was appointed, ne? (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.260)

		Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
(...) danger (...) about? (...) troops. (...) I wanted to insert a comment. I'm agreeing with Bruce by and large in this thread (because he doesn't _at all_ seem to be defending the US' naughtiness) but on this one point, I knew exactly what Scott (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.260)

		Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
(...) Hey, "He who mentions Hitler first has lost the argument". Go right ahead! :-) Scott, c'mon. Stop and look at your answer. Here I accuse you of grinding an axe against the United States, and all you do is try to sharpen it further. Who do you (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.260)

		Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
(...) Alert I used 'your' many times in the following post--they are not directed at Chris at all--just wrapping up, I hope, in one complete posting a bunch of different points made in this thread. If you could read the words, "you" or "your" as (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.260)

		Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
(...) Well, it all does hinge on how you'd mean "productively." I'd claim that the defenders at Ruby Ridge defended themselves productively. But, I think that even though I think their use of arms probably increased the casualty rate. No one would (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.260)

		Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
(...) If you're a Tymbrini, there's got to be a practical joke coming here soon before we get to the denoument of this thread. :-) I can hardly wait! Speaking of practical jokes, did you ever notice that "Tymbrini" contains "Brin"? That has to have (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.260)

		Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
(...) Notice how you never answer questions? That you just shift to a new attack? Iraq is not a destablizing force? Just say yes or no for once, and then append your explanations instead of this constant dodging. (...) Actually, yes, but not as (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.260)

		Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
(...) Ship 'em to Canada--we have folks who throw pies 'n stuff into the faces of our politicians, 'specially the PM :) Signs--baah! I'd have put a banner across the street! ;) Reading thru these two articles, looks like the police chief is falling (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.260)

		Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
(...) Where you looking? I truncated, I didn't remember the exact quote, and I didn't want to go looking for it, but my original posting was written as a response to the explicit 2nd, and I paraphrased last time--sorry 'bout that--but now that you (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.260)

		Re: This should be required reading for this group...
(...) But not always, regrettably. Yes, I agree. It is good to be able to remind people that debate involves reason or it isn't debate. Interesting discussion perhaps but not debate. We have a number of high quality debaters here and I think we all (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.260)

		Re: For Those That Don't Get the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) <snip> Bring on the mechs!!! I would love to see a load lifter a la "Aliens" or an ED-209 (under human control, of course) stomping about! Dunno if all that Japanimation mech stuff is (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.260)

		Re: For Those That Don't Get the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
(...) Maybe that's my stalling point. As a pseudointellectual dissector of texts (ie, English Lit. major) I have huge problems in applying "intent" to the meanings of works. In fiction, authorial intent is all but irrelevant; it may be different in (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.260)

		Re: For Those That Don't Get the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
(...) I don't like the idea of folks just running around with nukes and contagions unchecked. But I'm not willing to say that the 2nd only applies to man-portable arms. If we agree that the point is to enable The People to revolt, then it seems (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.260)

		Re: 2nd Amendment -- Bare Bones
(...) Heh. I think that this is the exact crux of the problem. I confess that I am not as well-read on this subject as my peers here, but a lot of what I've read identifies the first clause of the amendment as the vital part. I can't get too deep (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.260)

		Re: This should be required reading for this group...
(...) Agree. I can see someone looking at the example with the company buying the half-million dollar purchase, commenting on how obviously absurd it was to consider it "reasonable", and then going ahead and making the same mistake without a 2nd (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.260)

		world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
(...) What do you expect, this thread is about US foreign policy! (...) Where do you want me to start, Adam and Eve? (...) You have asked me that already. (...) You have misunderstood me. Bush wants to liberate the people of Iraq. While he says (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.260)

		Re: For Those That Don't Get the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
Pushing the envelope of "acceptable" subject divergence... (...) That makes sense. In terms of fiction, if Joe Author says "what I meant here was this..." then I don't give a hoot; if it's not in the text, then it's not in the text. That's why, for (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.260)

		Re: For Those That Don't Get the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
(...) I hear you. And if person X says "this is what person Y meant" I tend to discount that. Especially if it's some time later. But if person X says "this is what I meant when I wrote this 2 months ago" I tend to give that a lot of credence. And (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.260)

More: Next Page >>