Debate : Search Results: all rights are property rights


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

Results 6481 – 6500 of 11764.

Search took 0.02 CPU seconds.

Messages: Full | Brief | Compact

Sort: Prefer Newer | Prefer Older | Best Match

		Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. )
(...) Nope, I am not the slightest interested in acknowledgement of the effort at all, not unless it leads to interesting discussions. That would be cool. FWIW, it has also been my understanding that there is no real standard of behavior as to (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.251)

		Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
(...) As I mentioned before, it is to me (and to Ike as well). Perhaps not to you. But the phrase in question is "under God" anyway, so the point is moot. (...) And even if you could, by your own assertion in (...) Not exactly. I said it would be a (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.251)

		Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
(...) Yes. I am trying to explain the use of such language as "the Creator" from our very first document as a nation which. Is that offensive to atheists? Why not? Should it be changed? Why not? (...) Well, that's my point. I think the FFs did (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.251)

		Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
(...) I was responding to part of Richard's post: "I don't really care how this "bs" Pledge of Allegiance issue (bread and (...) He wrote that it was "painfully obvious"..."EXACTLY" what Jefferson felt about Christianity. I cited it to show that (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.251)

		Question Time is fine television.
(...) I mean, I don't know about the Canadian iteration, but I absolutely LOVE PM's Question Time in the UK. They show it at off times on CSPAN and sometimes it's just a hoot. Were it that all government activity were so entertaining. best LFB (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.251)

		Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
(...) you didn't but you seem to imply that if I don't believe in God, I shouldn't bother applying for citzenship...? Dan (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.251)

		Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
(...) Notice, however, the addition wasn't "in Jesus God" or "in Christ Almighty". That may be what Eisenhower had in his mind, but that isn't necessarily what it should mean to others. It is in the spirit of walking the thin line begun by our FFs. (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.251)

		Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
(...) You are very wrong. It is intentially vague. It is whomever you deem it to be. For me, yes, it is the God of Abraham and Jacob. -John (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.251)

		Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
We have a disconnect here. There is something resistant to logical analysis in what John is saying. It just doesn't gibe with what the other side is saying, in that it shows a lack of understanding of the fundamental point. (...) And the above seems (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.251)

		Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
(...) Well, he was writing the dissent... My point was the the majority used the concept of a national consensus for justification. If that's valid, then I would think that that justification would apply to the pledge case as well (where I (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.251)

		Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
(...) What I'm arguing is that the FF used religious language pretty freely (non-specific to be sure). Of course they didn't want a state-sponsored religion, but at the same time they recognized the importance of religion to the people. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.251)

		Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
(...) I read his statement and was at a loss for words. I interpret it exactly as you do. I had no idea how to respond. I guess you did a good job. I eventually came to believe (once more -- maybe I'll learn someday) that it is impossible for me (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.251)

		Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
(URL) now I'm really done. I'm not wasting any more time on someone who doesn't know any better, and doesn't want to know any better. Read other branches of the thread, John. ALL of the rest of us are wrong about Jefferson, and you know better -- is (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.251)

		Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
(URL) now I'm really done. I'm not wasting any more time on someone who doesn't know any better, and doesn't want to know any better. Read other branches of the thread, John. ALL of the rest of us are wrong about Jefferson, and you know better -- is (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.251)

		Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
(...) This has nothing to do with Christianity-- you are the one who mentioned it and thus you are the one who denegrated this debate to sarcasm and whatnot (and in doing so missed my initial point entirely). Read Jefferson's Virginia Statute of (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.251)

		Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Sure, it's irrelevant to you because you have no problem cramming it down other's throats. Repugnant. (...) -- Tom Stangl *(URL) Visual FAQ home *(URL) Bay Area DSMs (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.251)

		Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
(...) What if one worships no god or higher power? What then? You did not answer that point yet. To say that the nation is under god (any god, your god, the hindu pantheon, the blue mud rubbers, Larritarianism, Mammon, whatever) is to establish (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.251)

		Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
(...) You'd better elaborate on this, John, because the above statement makes you sound like a truly disgusting person without further expansion. It makes you sound like you're saying "if they don't say "under God", they shouldn't become citizens? (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.251)

		Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> (...) you're arguing about the semantics here. Would it be ok with there were state run mosques? a mosque isn't a church, right? I strongly believe that the state should stay away from all (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.251)

		Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
(...) From a previous thread. I'll dig it up, if you'd care to review it... (...) "God language" is an imprecise euphemism. If Congress enacts legislation saying "include 'under God' in the Pledge," then Congress has absolutely, unequivocally, and (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.251)

More: Next Page >>