Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Oct 2001 18:56:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
279 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.
> Paul has voted against a bill designed to help root out terrorism.
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 from all the bills as I cannot find the text yet, there
are many many bills floating around this season. More so than usual.
Do you have a cite for this particular bill, maybe? Just the number would be
enough as the Thomas site can then find it easily. I can't find it in any
of the stories I found so far (which is symptomatic, perhaps, the media no
longer cite bill numbers because no one bothers to look them up??)
I'd sure appreciate it if you knew the bill number and shared it with us. It
will improve the quality of the discussion, certainly.
> 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.
Simple, yet flawed, logic.
Unless you unreasoningly accept whatever the current government says is
correct, that is. I strongly doubt you actually do. You didn't agree with
conventional GOP views pre 911. We sparred about this earlier (but post 911)
when I asked if you were ready to grant a blank check to the administration
for whatever they proposed.
You never answered but I suspect really, if you think about it, you are not
willing to grant such a blank check. I know *I* am not.
Do you seriously want every bill that comes up that vaguely claims to be
anti terrorist to pass by N to zero margins every time? Please.
You're smarter than this, why pander to the authoritarians and their
jackboots by making these sorts of statements?
> Overstated, maybe. Is his voting against the bill going to win any converts
> to libertarianism. I don't think so.
Which point has been made, and answered, before. Did you want him to do what
he believes is right, or do what will win polls? He's more principled than
the rest of them, or maybe just a bit deeper of a thinker. This stance may
well cost him his seat in 2002 as the GOP will most likely remember this and
run a strong candidate against him in his primary.
> Does this bill invade privacy issues - definitely.
Good, we agree on something.
> Should it - if we're
> going to root out all money channels, transfer agents, limited partnerships,
> participating in moving terrorist money, it has to.
First demonstrate that current laws and current schemes and current tracing
mechanisms failed. They have not. What failed was their application.
When someone misses the target (and injures bystanders who are innocent) the
thing to do is investigate why they miss and give them some training on how
to hit targets, not buy them a bigger gun with which to continue missing
(and to continue to injure bystanders, but now, more seriously).
We should be calling for investigation of malfeasance within the CIA and FBI
rather than piously agreeing to whatever Ashcroft wants. And I thought Reno
was bad!
> Should we have to
> sacrifice some of our personal liberties and privacy to win this campaign.
> Yes, we are going to have to.
No! A thousand times no.
We do not need to give up any of our constitutional protections to win this.
Not one.
To do so is to lose.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
