Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Oct 2001 13:56:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
231 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ed "Boxer" Jones writes:
> Why am I not surprised:
>
> "Under White House prodding, a House panel on Thursday approved legislation
> to further expand the government's ability to cut money flows to terrorist
> networks. A parallel bill is part of Bush's sweeping anti-terrorism package
> in the Senate.
>
> The 62-1 vote by the House Financial Services Committee sent the measure to
> the full House. The lone dissenting vote came from Rep. Ron Paul (news - bio
> - voting record), R-Texas, a staunch libertarian."
>
> From: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011012/ts/terrorist_money_5.html
Because maybe the bill is flawed? Billing something as a bill to "cut money
flows" doesn't mean it's a GOOD bill, or even that cutting money flows is
what is going to be done.
We have seen a LOT of 97-0 and 426-1 kind of votes lately, after rather
little or no debate. Personally, John Ashcroft scares the jeepers out of me,
and I'm not alone, but apparently when he says "we need civil rights
violation X" Congress falls all over itself to provide it. And when lobby
groups say "we need bailout Y" Congress falls all over itself to rape the
taxpayers further.
I'm concerned about the entire "Sweeping antiterrorism package". So is the
ACLU, for that matter... you can go to their site or many others and see the
broad list of hundreds of organizations of all stripes that are concerned
that we are rushing into a loss of freedom. (1)
The laws and mechanisms we had before were plenty. MORE than plenty. What is
needed is not more laws, but some investigation into why our officials
failed so badly using the tools they already had. But passing more laws is
easier because it doesn't dig up any skeletons and it lets politicians DO
SOMETHING.
I say Bravo for Ron Paul and shame on the rest of them for this particular
outcome. You should dig into what these bills actually do before you start
complaining about voices urging caution or pointing out flaws. I have and
I'm scared.
1 - I've spoken here about this before but it got lost in all the "well, are
you going to answer?" drivel
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
| Sometimes sacrifices have to be made Larry. Innocent people are being sacrificed in Afghanistan right now as we speak. Our armed forces are already risking their lives, and some special ops guys (& gals?) *may* already have died. If this converts to (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
| Why am I not surprised: "Under White House prodding, a House panel on Thursday approved legislation to further expand the government's ability to cut money flows to terrorist networks. A parallel bill is part of Bush's sweeping anti-terrorism (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-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
|
|
|
|
