Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:15:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
212 times
|
| |
|
|
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 a full on ground war, more will die.
In that context, is it too much to let some snooper see your grocery bill?
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
(Not drivel Larry. Concern. Thanks for reminding me though (honest), here goes:)
"freedom", is a joke coming from you. In the last weeks you have shown me
that you don't understand freedom or liberty (and I'm not the only one that
thinks that).
Freedom & liberty
From http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=13318
==+==
SA
As for "first principles", I have become convinced that you do not even
understand what "freedom" really means. What tipped the balance was this post:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=13204
LP:
I'm totally comfortable with what I said there and see no contradiction.
Feel free to explain how it shows that I don't understand what freedom
means. Freedom does NOT mean letting those that violate your rights get away
with it if you can help it.
SA:
Your comfort is irrelvant. You said what happened on the 11th was an attack
on "freedom and liberty", I'm just asking you to justify that (if you can).
This text questions the premis that it was an attack on freedom and liberty:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4266289,00.html
The author takes it apart. It is a long text, but well worth the read. Read
it, and then tell me what you mean by "freedom and liberty".
==+==
Scott A
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
