Debate : 10476


Off-Topic / Debate / 10476	10475 \| 10477

Subject:	Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Mon, 14 May 2001 15:12:05 GMT
Viewed:	920 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: > > To the question of whether we SHOULD build a system, one has to first answer > > the question of "what does that have to do with America?" which is > > essentially the question that Scott posed. Unlike most of Scott's questions, > > it's actually a valid one. > > I asked a vailid one here: > http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=10297 When you answer every single question asked of you I will answer every single question asked of me... I am not going to reopen that particular thread except to say that I am satisfied, based on my life long intake of news, opinion, propaganda and falsehood, rather than based on any particular site, that my original statement about which black was blacker is correct. Further, I do think there are such a thing as terrorists. Do you? I admit my definition may not be perfect. Do you have a better one to offer? I asked but didn't get a satisfactory answer. > > - because we feel an obligation to keep the world safe from missiles. > > That is not very libertarian? I thought the libertarian philosophy was "me! > me! me!" ? Do you just toss attempted witticisms, falsehoods etc. into your reply without even reading the next paragraph, then? I was enumerating possible reasons that might be advanced. NOT saying that they were all my reasons... As the very next paragraph (see it, it's right there below this one) says. Try reading the post all the way through before you spout. Or even a para or two ahead... that would be an improvement. > > This is not a satisfactory answer to me, whether it is correct or not. I am > > not in the "we should be the world's policeman because we can" school. See, there it is. The *very* *next* *paragraph*. It says "I don't buy that argument!!!" Hope that helps. ++Lar

Message has 2 Replies:

		Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
(...) :-O (...) But you could not justify it any way! (...) I did not sentance them Larry - you did. (...) This is all out of context. You were asked a question. You came up with possible answers. One of which contradicts your libertarian viewpoint. (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
(...) A "correct" opinion based on lies, falsehoods, generalization, and sheepish acceptance of the Zionist media model. Not a learned, open minded or fact based opinion gleaned from comparative analysis. Thus, in a world ethics perspective, (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
(...) I asked a vailid one here: (URL)(although it was posed in his own inimitably (...) Ah. That would be because I questioned YOU... and you never like that. (...) That is not very libertarian? I thought the libertarian philosophy was "me! me! (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)

Entire Thread on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact

Custom Search