Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 14 May 2001 15:32:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
722 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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...
:-O
>
> 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.
But you could not justify it any way!
>
> 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.
I did not sentance them Larry - you did.
>
> > > - 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.
This is all out of context. You were asked a question. You came up with
possible answers. One of which contradicts your libertarian viewpoint. It is
no big deal. But I am happy for you to make a big noise about these small
points - but avoid the others - only the shallow will miss your muddying the
waters this way constantly.
Scott A
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
