 | | 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: 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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: 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
