 | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) <some snippage of contents has occurred> (...) It is not clear to *me* that I believe America will always have any (significant) enemy. I rather think that as countries become more free, more of the world will become less belligerent. Many (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | (...) What is this "belligerent" stuff? Are you to decide which country is "belligerent"? Belligerent to whom? To us? What, we aren't belligerent? Are they more belligerent? Don't you find this attitude the least bit arrogant? (...) I believe we (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | (...) You're missing the point, Daniel. Why in must "a space based manufacturing infrastructure" be a "business of warfare"? I think the fact that you seem to equate them speaks more about YOU than about Larry or anyone else. I think you're a more (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | (...) I think you're missing the point, Tom. Why should the beginnings of a "space based manufacturing infrastructure" be based on military applications? My whole point is that, all too often in this country, we use "enemies" to justify alarming (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | (...) Because it will get things done faster, because no one (or consortium of) company is willing to pony up the money to do so at this time? (...) Oh, so we shouldn't allow anything to be done if SOME of the people involved are motivated by money (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | (...) What's the big rush? As I said, look what happened in the last century because people rushed into so many things without considering the long term consequences. It is entirely possible that we may end up creating another problem for the next (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | (...) Circumspection was urged in this idealised "then" you're talking about too--especially as regards air travel, motor vehicles, and even medicine. And no mistake, you're absolutely right, we made a lot of problems (although I'd argue the balance (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) And why do you choose to twist what *I* say? You misquoted and distorted me, without a cite, then had the audacity to say you were "protecting my privacy" by not citing me. That's rich. I use the word belligerent to describe a participant in a (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | (...) I don't need to twist things, I even showed you your own words exactly as you wrote them. (...) That's a distortion and misquote right there! I said I did cite your example indirectly but that I "respected your anonymity" by leaving your name (...) (24 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) And then misinterpreted them. (...) Sorry. You are correct. There is a *tiny* bit of difference between protecting privacy and respecting anonymity. Not enough that you can slip a piece of paper beween them, but a tiny bit. However, it's still (...) (24 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | (...) I call it as I see it. We don't see things the same way. That much we can agree on. (...) A tactic? What is this discussion to you, a game? (...) Distortion or logical assumption? Why else would AMERICA put a defense system up there unless it (...) (24 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) I think his point is not that we would _never_ protect American soil with a space based defense, but that we wouldn't be protecting the homeland from Iraq-launched Scuds. There are numerous reasons to build such a defense including: protecting (...) (24 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | (...) I understand that and I don't believe, or inferred, that Larry ever meant protecting America exclusively. But he did use the example of Iraqi "Scuds" as not a "created or fictitious need" for this defense system. I agree it may have been a (...) (24 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
