| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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)
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 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".
I don't follow.
>
> > 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.
Really. Who psoted this then:
==+==
I want to get the federal government
_completely_ out of every area where it's made
such a mess -- health care, education, law
enforcement, welfare, foreign aid, corporate
welfare, highway boondoggles, farm subsidies. Not
only are these programs unconstitutional, they do
tremendous damage to our lives.
==+==
Scott A
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The big lie
|
| (...) Presumably it was me, but whether it was or not (I forget and you gave no link so I can't check without searching) I agree with it. Nothing inconsistent there with my stance on airline security or airport security either. The airlines ought to (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The big lie
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
