 | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur
|
|
Oh, and another thing, before you accuse others of calling names, you might want to avoid doing the same yourself, your subject line is a deliberate slur... unbacked by any fact (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur
|
|
(...) I'm not sure about that. It looks like the guy is a liiberterian (do you dispute that?) and that this bill may help catch the bad guys (do you dispute that?). Scott A (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur
|
|
(...) No. In fact we had a dustup in the past about whether he was or not and I was saying he was. (...) Yes I do dispute that. And even if it does help, which I dispute, it's not necessarily a good idea. We *could* pass a law requiring all airline (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) Yes it *is* too much, without probable cause. You forget what we are fighting for. (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur
|
|
(...) On what grounds? (...) You are being silly. (...) I'm not saying that. I don't want to speak for Ed, but I don't think he is either. (...) 1. You are lacking logic. If Lego did not list those items but just give some $$ with no fuss, how would (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) Nope. Scott A (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) Hmmm... I believe Bush said something to the effect of "you will be our ally and help us root out terrorism or you side with terrorism and are the enemy" Not a direct quote, this is the crux of it. Paul has voted against a bill designed to (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur
|
|
(...) On the grounds that it may well be a flawed bill. I haven't found an article that cites which bill it is so it could be any of these: (from (URL) Bills from the 107th Congress ranked by relevance on"money laundering ". 42 bills containing your (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) First, that doesn't mean that we owe Bush and his administration blind obedience. Thank God we still have a republic. I'm glad that there are dissenters in the audience (1), even if I disagree with them, because it prevents gestapoism (2). (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) And introduced several *other* bills designed to help root it out as well. From this vantage, those other bills, what I know of them (which is little), may well be MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE measures. I freely admit I cannot quote chapter and verse (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) You know what, Scott? You are absolutely right. That text IS worth the read and anyone who is wondering if the Guardian harbors fools or fellow travelers or not ought to go read it and carefully think about the bile that this author spews. (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) I do not have a cite for the bill numebr, but it is summarized here: (URL)Do you seriously want every bill that comes up that vaguely claims to be (...) Of course not, however, this bill is "terrorism" specific. (...) In actuality, the Money (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) Wow. That's something. He's even dead wrong on details; at least two of the hijackers *did* leave suicide notes, in the form of wills. Argue all you like about the justness of the US response and whether that's consistent with our message, but (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) I strongly disagree. It is precisely this kind of knee-jerk, poorly thought out logic that leads us down the path of the destruction of our beloved republic. Protecting our civil rights, enumerated and unemurated in the U.S. Constitution and (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) Me too. What a great post. You and I perhaps differ about whether we can ameliorate terrorism by the course we're on now of taking the war to them and disassembling them and their regimes or not, but we agree 100% about the importance of our (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) Scott, I agree with Larry here. Yes, I'm prepared to make sacrifices. I'm not prepared to make unnecessary sacrifices, and your grocery bill example falls squarely in that category (unless, as Larry says, there's probable cause) ROSCO (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ed Jones writes: <snip> (...) This is not a good example. In the U.S. military, any "freedom" allotted, is merely a luxury. This from my own personnal experiance in the U.S. Navy for four years. Life in the service is (...) (23 years ago, 13-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
I agree with the basic point (since it's in support of mine) but must offer this correction... (...) Currently a voluntary forfeiture. At times in our history it was involuntary, since we had conscription. Libertarians oppose conscription, of (...) (23 years ago, 13-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur
|
|
(...) "may well" is not "is" (...) So you have no basis for *your* mudslinging??? Have you no shame? (...) Why do we want to stop hijackings? To protect life and commerce? Your proposal will not do the latter. (...) You were taking a principle to (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | This really is a low form of debate
|
|
(...) Larry, I can't believe you are calling be a liar again. This really is a low form of debate. Give an example of were I have lied. I challenge you. Do it or apologise. If I have lied, I will apologise. Once you have done that, answer these: Re: (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This really is a low form of debate
|
|
(...) If lieing includes distorting the truth by omission, deliberately using pejorative terms to leave unfavorable impressions of situations and people, and in general playing fast and loose with the truth as it suits your whim, then I give you no (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | He doesn't have the humility to admit when he's wrong.
|
|
Larry, You are becoming a parody of yourself. The is typical of you, rather than answer the point you make a lot of noise and sling some mud. I shall ask you again. Give an example of were I have lied. I challenge you. Do it or apologise. If I have (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) Yes, it is. Not by itself, but because it won't help track down a single terrorist. We have had a number of similar disputes here in Germany, where some politicians and executives said they need this or that legislation to track down the (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) Yeah, the simple logic of a simple cowboy president. Do you always believe what your president says? (...) I don't know how exactly you define privacy. According to my definition, privacy is something individuals should be able to enjoy. So, (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) He is a she. The text was published the day after the notes were found. I expect it was written before (it was in the Saturday supplement - not the main paper). The response of Guardian readers to the text is here: (URL) (...) I have said (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) Hmm. It looks like it does not agree with you view, so you start throwing mud. For the record, I think that is the 1st time Arundhati Roy (a booker prize winner - so no fool) has written for the Guardian. (...) Show us where the distortion is. (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) The “grocery bill” comment was an attempt to trivialise the snooped material and focus on the snooping – not a hard argument. I am not proposing that “unnecessary sacrifices” should be made. The term is complete oxymoron in this context. The (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) So we should give in? Or should we keep on using our failing methods? (...) I could not resist. (...) I don't follow? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) I would agree that *public* companies should be totally open (like thats ever gonna happen), but I see no reason why *private* companies should not be allowed total privacy. I see them as similar to families. ROSCO (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Reading comprehension problems.
|
|
(...) Satisfied or not, that's all the apology you get. (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | He still doesn't have the humility to admit when he's wrong.
|
|
Larry, that was not an apology - that was more insults. More mud. More of your low level of debate. I shall ask you again. Give an example of were I have lied. I challenge you. Do it, or apologise. Put up, or shut up. All I am asking is that you (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: He still doesn't have the humility to admit when he's wrong.
|
|
(...) No, but this isn't the place to ask. Larry's stated very clearly his position. Please sort it out privately with him. If after that Larry sees any reason to apologise, he can do that here, but this is not the place for your private feud. ROSCO (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: He still doesn't have the humility to admit when he's wrong.
|
|
(...) I think it is. This is where he made the unsubstantiated allegation. This is where he should substantiate it or apologise. I could call you “pond slime” here publicly, and then e-mail a quick note to say sorry. Would that suffice for you? (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: He still doesn't have the humility to admit when he's wrong.
|
|
(...) Thank you. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) Does the fact that Bush said something to that effect make his statement true? Fredrik (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur
|
|
(...) Why don't you people trim anything? (...) I didn't see this original note...that's not a bad idea actually! I think we need more nudity. :-) (...) Did you read _Diamond Age_? What about the goombah with the gun in his forehead? (...) How's (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur
|
|
(...) Go to Iceland. They have that there. According to _Maxim_ (not the worlds most reliable source) anyway. (...) Implied right to privacy makes it unconstitutional for government to require it, I think. (anyway it's required to make the example (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | What, no answer? (was a LP span thread)
|
|
(...) What, no answer? Scott A (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) We should USE the legislation we HAVE. Of course, this will NOT solve all problems, be it in the area of organized criminality, or terrorism. We also need to evolve or society, and the world order, into something that gives people less reason (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) She has written a Second piece for the Guardian. Again the text is strongly worded, but well written. Before anyone reads it, what do these nations have in common: China (1945-46, 1950-53), Korea (1950-53), Guatemala (1954, 1967-69), Indonesia (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
