Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Oct 2001 18:23:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
250 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ed "Boxer" Jones writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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.
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).
Second, it doesn't make congressman X a friend of terror or an enemy of the US
because said congressman differs as to the particulars of strategy, etc.
> Paul has voted against a bill designed to help root out terrorism.
> Irregardless of his reasons for doing so, the impression he leaves by voting
> against the bill is that he does not side with those who would root out
> terrorism and therefore sides with the terrorists. Simple logic.
So lets tar and feather him and teach him a lesson real good. Perhaps its not a
good bill. Perhaps it is! But it doesn't make him Paul Revere because he voted
against it.
> Overstated, maybe. Is his voting against the bill going to win any converts
> to libertarianism. I don't think so.
Maybe he voted that way as a matter of personal conscience. Maybe he wasn't
trying to win converts.
>
> Does this bill invade privacy issues - definitely. Should it - if we're
> going to root out all money channels, transfer agents, limited partnerships,
> participating in moving terrorist money, it has to. Should we have to
> sacrifice some of our personal liberties and privacy to win this campaign.
> Yes, we are going to have to.
Perhaps you're right on all counts, but lets not brand Paul a heretic because he
lawfully dissents within the framework of peaceful government.
(1) I'm not suggesting that Paul dissents from the cause against terrorism.
(2) I voted for Bush
Respectfully,
james
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
49 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
