Subject:
|
Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 15 Sep 2001 15:34:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
814 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ed Jones writes:
> >
> > > The LP will not be making any war decisions.
> >
> > I hope to god that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats will either. What
> > I hope is that all groups, parties, and individuals make their voices heard >>so
> > that we can go forward as a country united rather than straggling and
> > unsupportive of the elite group who gets to decide everything for us. It
> > doesn't even seem like a party issue.
>
> True enough, but I believe Ed's point was that, given the party
> composition of Congress, the likelihood of a Libertarian Congressional
> Representative contributing to the forthcoming national policy is quite >remote.
I don't think that's what he was saying at all. He has said that the LP has
no business making its opinion known. (accusing it of pandering is in
essence making that charge) I reject that notion, categorically.
The LP has as much right (and duty) to influence public opinion as any other
body. Further, members of the LP (along with everyone else) ought to be
talking to their representatives and making their feelings known. My
representative is a (somewhat bible thumping but not as bad as some)
Republican. My senators are Democrats. That is not going to stop me from
letting them know what I think. And whether you are a libertarian or a
communist, an atheist or a baptist, you ought to be doing the same. Do it in
a reasoned way, but make your principles known.
> I don't believe (and please correct me if I'm wrong, Ed) that he was
> suggesting that decisions will be made to launch a Democrat War against bin
> Laden, nor to launch a Republican War against bin Laden. If anything, the
> degree of unity in Congress lately has more or less shelved partisanship for
> the time being.
We don't need partisanship. What we need is an examination of what ought to
be done about this based on principles. The foamers raving to kill them all
scare me. They aren't basing their response on principle, but rather
baseless hatred. The foamers raving to send flowers scare me. They aren't
basing their response on principle either, but rather a false view of reality.
I am advocating a strong response, a disassembly response, stronger than the
LP is advocating in fact, but it's because we *created* these despots and we
ought to clean up our mess. We made Saddam way more powerful, we made the
Taliban way more powerful, heck, our oil companies even made Libya more
powerful. Now we have to clean that mess we made up and if that requires a
massive military force, so be it.
Further I am somewhat swayed by the notion that we ought to go it alone else
we run the risk of aiding others agendas. Israeli intelligence will
naturally target their threats in the Palestinians. Indian intelligence will
naturally target their threats among the Pakistanis. Russian intelligence is
already claiming that this is somehow linked to Chechen rebels. None of that
makes any more sense than the Iranians saying that the Israelis did it.
But I digress.
What really gets up my nose about this particular subthread is someone
trying to suppress debate by accusing a group making its position known of
something false and rather repulsive.
And Ed is doing that with ultimately false charge of pandering. I'm willing
to postulate that it's overreaction on his part rather than deliberate
maliciousness. If he stops now.
But if he continues to call it pandering then I will question his motive.
And Scott is doing that by claiming that anything the LP says is spam. Look
beyond that baseless charge and think about what is being done by Scott. He
posts links to propaganda all the time to try to make points. The material
that I post directly is such that I cannot give a link, it was mailed to me.
I much more frequently give links. I question his motives in doing so as
well. Why is he trying to suppress discussion?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
| (...) Not an overreaction nor deliberate maliciousness. Just stating my opinion that the LP Statement is moot. The LP must know that their opinion in this crises is moot. Whether or not you like it, the majority of the country could care less about (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
| (...) True enough, but I believe Ed's point was that, given the party composition of Congress, the likelihood of a Libertarian Congressional Representative contributing to the forthcoming national policy is quite remote. I don't believe (and please (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
49 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
