 | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
Sometimes sacrifices have to be made Larry. Innocent people are being sacrificed in Afghanistan right now as we speak. Our armed forces are already risking their lives, and some special ops guys (& gals?) *may* already have died. If this converts to (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) "coming through for them" and dissenting against a bill that you feel is not appropriate or effective for X reasons. Ed, do you know why he voted against that bill? Why do some homework before slinging mud? james (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) flows" doesn't mean it's a GOOD bill, or even that cutting money flows is what is going to be done. We have seen a LOT of 97-0 and 426-1 kind of votes lately, after rather little or no debate. Personally, John Ashcroft scares the jeepers out (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: eBay's Auction for America
|
|
I did not notice John had set FUT OTD. I still think it belongs in LD. But, it is here now. :-/ Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
Why am I not surprised: "Under White House prodding, a House panel on Thursday approved legislation to further expand the government's ability to cut money flows to terrorist networks. A parallel bill is part of Bush's sweeping anti-terrorism (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Put up - or shut up.
|
|
(...) What, no answer? (...) Well, have you seen the light? (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What, no answer?
|
|
(...) What, no answer? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: eBay's Auction for America
|
|
(...) That is not my main point. My point is that by giving a little they will also gain. I did not view it as a 100% altruistic effort on their part. Further, if you take a look at the auctions you will see that I have bid on them (~$850 so far). (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: PA censoring journalists again, but repudiating bin Laden...
|
|
(...) I have no idea. I hope not. (...) I'm also surprised. Do you agree with it? Scott A (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
|
(...) Did I ever tell you a little story I heard about Tom? It goes like this ... :) Scott A (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cuba is a terrorist state (was Re: Any truth in this one - Cuba as a terrostist state.
|
|
(...) Do you have a reference for this? (...) The interesting thing about Libya is the hassle it got for the Pam-Am bombing over my fair land. It turns out that one of the accused was innocent and the second is appealing his conviction. I wonder if (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Ok, show me where I have lied? Or apologise.
|
|
(...) Larry you are going to have to answer this one, or withdraw your comment and apologise unreservedly to me on this forum. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) Rather than comparing it to coal plants, how about keeping it within the realm of transport? Most reasonable people accept that roads should be policed to ensure that they are safe where driver/owner safety considerations are concerned. Why (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Malcolm Forbes
|
|
(...) Your mind perhaps. "Education's purpose is to replace an empty mind with an open one." (...) If that is the case, feel free to provide the location of your answer. (...) ROFL. This is a SQUIRM. Is this really the best you can do? Have you no (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) Larry, this is a stark example of how your Libertarianism takes ideas out of context. You have some idea that rights and risks adhere to individuals. But that is no longer the essential principle in our present context. Rights have already (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Something slightly lighter?
|
|
I must admit, I was laughing out loud at this! Whew! I hope nobody picks on Dino Ignacio, the guy who initially made the doctored photo of Bin Ladin with Bert when he was running his "Evil Bert" website years ago. I still think it was a funny idea (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) would (...) choose (...) Then why did Klick make a point of it? The current service being provided (air travel) benefits the passengers and is already paid for by them (generally). The proposed service (enhanced security) does not only benefit (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) Doesn't matter who benefits. What matters is who is RESPONSIBLE. And that is the airlines. If they're not flying, no potential weapons... So the airlines should pay, or the passengers deriving benefit from travel and thus causing the risk to (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
