| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> But even if you paranoia was well founded (I don't mean the stuff about the
> black helicopters). Surely you legislators have to "authorise" the change?
Well, that's why I brought it up in the first place...
There are people working to try to influence the legislature NOT to do that.
But in a time of hysteria, when laws are made up in one day and then passed
that same day or the next by unanimous vote (the 40 B emergency
appropriation, the 15B airline bailout (what's next, a travel agent
bailout?)), it's tough to oppose them, things move too fast. Further, we
have a history of not undoing laws no matter how foolish, no matter what the
circumstances of their passage.
If posting here causes one or two Americans to call or email their
congressmen asking for restraint, for careful reflection, for consideration
of whether something is constitutional before rushing it through, then it
was worth doing... Even, worth putting up with silly questions like yours
meanwhile.
> I have a great deal of respect for what you are saying. But I feel we have
> to be careful that we not go down the road of saying that mistakes/civilian
> deaths are inevitable/acceptable. If this conflict had unfolded they way
> many appeared to want it to a week or two ago ("lets bomb them into the
> Stone Age") than the innocent lives lost may well have outweighed the lives
> saved.
Well thank goodness it didn't.
> > I am sure you will twist my words against me but please explain how to
> > prosecute a war without killing anyone at all, if you can.
(left unanswered)
> > > I note that in your reply, you failed to address these points:
> > > 1. Your apparent departure from your usual LP dogma.
> >
> > If I agree 100% I'm dogmatic, if I think for myself, I'm a hypocrite.
> Larry instead of making all this fuss,
In other words you contradicted yourself but point the finger at me instead
for "making a fuss".
> why not just address the points.
What points? You want me to go over the entire LP platform, discuss where I
differ and defend it point by point? Get real. Or are you asking something else?
> I am actually interested to hear why you have changed
> you mind on airport/line security.
I don't believe I *have* changed my mind about it.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The big lie
|
| (...) My mistake. 1st point I don't feel I twist your words, but I think you do twist my own. The way you do this is to quote me out of context. 2nd point. I did not say wars could not be fought without death did I? (...) I don't follow. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The big lie
|
| (...) Lack of the "usual standard" does not equal "no standard". Lifting the "current restriction" does not equal "no restriction". But even if you paranoia was well founded (I don't mean the stuff about the black helicopters). Surely you (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
74 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
|
|
|
|
