| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > Maybe that's because most of us don't see those rights as being
> > under assault? This, even though we do understand those rights
> > just as fully and completely as you do?
>
> Kirby is a little too conspiracy prone for my taste also (really, it's his
> one obvious debate flaw), but that doesn't mean that he is wrong -- the fact
> is, Kirby is right in most of the broader strokes of his statements, even if
> he screws up the details. I hope Kirby will forgive me if I state that he
> is a person dangerously equipped with a *little* of the correct information,
> and enough of the incorrect information that he seems a fool and easily
> dismissed. But he shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, his fears -- to my
> mind at least -- are more than justified.
I hope that my rail against the intentionalist part of his statements
doesn't come across as a "hunky-dory" sense of complacency. If you
look at the end of my other message, you'll see the point--there are
problems, and they DO need to be addressed, but it's not a systemic
failure. Yes, abuse of forfeiture and s/s sucks, a LOT, and I'm a real
skeptic about the new turn law enforcement is trying to take, but the
point I was making is that there is still DIALOGUE. It's under
negotiation.
You've attributed to me far too little understanding. Most of what
you have written in your message finds agreement in my other post.
Again, I don't have a problem with saying something's screwed up,
but rather with the conclusions the conspiracists *draw* from those
"cracks", as you put it. Regarding the U.S. as a house built on
quicksand--we're at a crisis point. Most crisis points have seen
this charge leveled; from the Depression to WWII to the Red Scares
of the 20s/50s. I'm sorry, I don't think it's quite so anomalous, at
least not *yet*. (That may change, depending on what happens from
here on out.)
(Also, I'm not a historian of the US, so the "closeness" between
the two disciplines aren't quite so pronounced as you'd think.)
> Anyway, before you cut loose on Kirby you might have checked your facts a
> little (and I see you have in a more recent post
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=15596). I am pretty sure he is
> talking about laws like: 18 U.S.C. §§ 981 & 982; 18 U.S.C. § 1341; 18 U.S.C.
> § 1956; 18 U.S.C. § 1961; 21 U.S.C. § 881; etc. What's scary is that the
> expansion of this stuff is being carried on under the new USA Act/Patriot
> Act and the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001. But, y'all knew that and
> didn't care about it either -- right?! I know you think the problem has
> been fixed LFB, but I doubt it -- I really doubt it. You seem more
> comfortable with govt. corruption than am I. Indeed, you seem to think its
> par for the course.
Sorry, but some corruption *is* par for the course. History bears that
out, for well or ill. And I don't think the problem is "fixed," per se;
see the other post. It is (or was, on 9/10) under negotiation.
> You are also ignoring the many state versions of these same laws. Have fun
> shepardizing the issue.
I wasn't even going to get into that. (But if you look at the other
post, my position on the laws is very clear--as constituted, they're
patently unfair. That doesn't prove intent, nor that they can't and
won't be reformulated.)
> Kirby's conspiracy thing is actually small potatoes when you realize that it
> doesn't take a conspiracy to ruin things. Still, I might call it a
> conspiracy of ignorance, apathy, and comfortable living. And I have to
> admit --it's contagious. I know I caught the bug some time ago. But, at
> least I know I have become apathetic. Why I even respond to these debate
> posts is a matter for speculation...
I don't think you and I are really in disagreement on fundamentals,
save the "systemic failure" thing (which has its merits, true).
My major issue was with the *intentionalist* reading, so I apologize
if that didn't come through as the target. But I do know that I haven't
spent nearly as much time looking at the expansion-of-powers issue in
the last three months as I want to--only enough to know that I oppose
most of it. But that's not the point I was trying to get at.
best
LFB
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: ???
|
| (...) <snip> (...) I think you've read me wrong. I don't fear a "systemic failure" (I assume you mean the collapse of society?) What I fear is the *enslavement* of our society. At many levels we are already slaves. So long as we depend upon (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | ??? (was Re: An armed society...(what if?))
|
| (...) LFB, Kirby is a little too conspiracy prone for my taste also (really, it's his one obvious debate flaw), but that doesn't mean that he is wrong -- the fact is, Kirby is right in most of the broader strokes of his statements, even if he screws (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
179 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
