Re: "several posts ago you said you couldn't handle the level of gov't required by a compassionate conservative."
So?
And your point is?
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.
Well, that was clear as mud. I guess you must want us to kind of wing it until we find the gov't that meets your requirements. I am beginning to see why the libertarian movement has had trouble getting off the ground.
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?
Come again? Are you asking for clarity from yourself? I am not surprised.
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.
Relax? You're funny!
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.
You trust right. I have never seen so many people snookered by a snake oil salesman. Not only was Saddam not a threat to us, he was no longer a threat to his neighbors. Conservatives, and apparently, libertarians have an overactive imagination that exceeds even Disney's.
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.
Now be nice....you know you don't look good when you get all edgy.
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.
Fouled out? This isn't a ball game. And you WERE pre emptive and a bit rude. Furthermore, your explanation did not justify your attempt to negate my position.
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").
Just because two political parties state publicly that our actions were liberating does not make it so. The act of war is a tyrannical state. Its often justified by noble causes but the reality is that the perpetrator rarely accomplishes the noble goals that it claims will be accomplished; to whit, Hitler in Europe, the US in Vietnam, Saddam in Kuwait, and the US again but this time in Iraq.
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,
No. In fact, I think its now inevitable that we will be hit again. Its only a matter of time. And more effort will be expended by our enemies to make it happen.
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?"
Most Americans don't have a clue who the Iraqis are. I find it extremely offensive that Bush and the rest of those Americans who believe in him have determined that they know what's best for Iraqis. How dare they tell another people how to live? The hubris behind such a notion is disgusting.
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."
Its probably just you.
My questions were not to show tyranny but a lack of freedom; the very thing you said was the reason for the dropping of bombs. O wise one, you can't have it both ways. We either dropped the bombs and gave them their freedom, or we dropped the bombs and took over. By your refusal to answer all of my questions, it looks like it was the latter.
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."
Who cares? My conversation is not dictated by phraseology.
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.
And again, your point was?
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.
There you go again trying to dictate the results.
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).
Well, we both know for whom we will vote. May the best man win!
ted |
