Re: "several posts ago you said you couldn't handle the level of gov't required by a compassionate conservative."
So?
Re: "You never did make clear what level of gov't you would find acceptable."
From here, a wide range is relatively acceptable, so long as its less while never lessening justice.
Re: "However, like conservatives, I would expect most libertarians to believe the less gov't, the better. You, of course, are permitted to deviate from the norm if you like."
I don't deviate from the norm of either the Republicans nor the Libertarians in wanting a well-ordered government.
That I want to achieve less government far more quickly than Republicans care to proceed with(if they wish to proceed at all), simply shows I am the Libertarian I've noted I am, and is, as you no doubt see, precisely within the norm for Libertarians. Come again?
Re: "You make some big assumptions on very limited information."
Hey, its just my opinion based on the words I've received from you, relax.
Re: "Maybe that's how you were so easily convinced of the import of toppling Saddam."
I trust you don't believe 911 showed us that in these times we should indeed rid the world of defiantly bad and ruthless actors before they act(and before they continue harming the well-being of their own populations, as a bonus). The very existence of Hitler himself seems absurd and cartoonish, yet he was all too real, and is all too historically close, as is the new absurd reality of 9/11/01.
Re: "verbosity of a gossip"
That doesn't begin to sum up the irrelevant ad hominem nature of your total response, but its an accurate start.
Re: "Once again, Dan B. are you trying to control the direction of the conversation by ending a point pre-emptively?"
Here, you've completely fouled-out, as you've hinged your ad-hominem attack upon your false representation that I'd only replied to you with two words. Even if you hadn't conjured a lie based in ommission, my two words are no less than well accepted opinion(as both major political parties in America tend strongly to believe that the word "liberation" applies to our actions in Iraq, rather than "tyranny").
Re: "Who's freedom do you think we were defending......certainly not our own? The Iraqis had no freedom to defend."
It seems clear that you don't believe acting against Saddam can possibly help prevent another 911 in America, and somehow, you both recognize that the Iraqis had no freedom and seemingly must believe that they cannot have any in the future, else you could not still ponder your opening question, "Who's freedom do you think we were defending?"
Re: "Did the Iraqis choose their governing council? Are the Iraqis being allowed to choose the form of gov't they want? Do the Iraqis have a say in where their oil is going and to whom and at what price its being sold? According to the administration, there are a number of reconstruction projects going on in the country.......which Iraqis approved them?"
Of all these questions which both suggest and fail to show tyranny is offered rather than the freedom we hopefully are insisting upon, the last is perhaps most telling. Electrical Power, oil wells, and etc. are going back online, and you are worried about which iraqis approved this and implying the answer indicates tyranny. Maybe its just me, but I suspect the answer is "VIRTUALLY ALL OF THEM, OF COURSE."
Re: "One man's freedom may be another man's tyranny. A word of advice..........you best get your facts straight before making conclusions..."
The phrase was originally "one man's trash is another man's treasure." Individual Freedom solves this problem, unless it allows those whos' Treasure is to Kill all those who don't believe as they do, to succeed.
Re: "So what if you are well intentioned........if you are wrong, it will hurt no matter whether the aim was well intentioned or not."
That is true, goes for your notions just as well of course, and I am happy to let readers(if there are any) decide.
Re: "They(Mr. Bush's intentions, though you probably meant "actions") are wrong and they are hurting my country. For that reason, he must not win a second term."
His intentions, good or bad(hey, you don't care anyway), will almost certainly result in accomplishing a huge good for people on all sides. Noting too that he inherited a quickly failing market economy which has now turned around(starting just 2 years into his term, or sooner(9 month point 9/11 bottom?), despite the hell of 9/11) to have already moved further ahead quicker than virtually anyone dared suggest could happen, I therefore feel he resoundingly deserves to serve again(but I'll vote for a better Libertarian Candidate, almost certainly).
Dan B. |
