To: Michael M who wrote (56554 ) 9/30/1999 5:04:00 PM From: Father Terrence Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
Michael: I would appreciate it if you would take a little bit more time to read my posts before responding to them... Terrance -- The name is Terrence .I actually agree with most of what you say re. trends in government. What to do? Declare martial law for a few years -- sort everything out -- maybe hold elections eventually. Right this way Gen. Pinochet..... This is a crazy response if you "actually agree" with me. You flippantly propose a statist-dictatorship?? What the heck do you have up there in your noggin? Pasta?"My country, right or wrong," trivializes the blood sacrifice of millions who stepped forward when duty called -- "Special train for Atkins....." and all that. If that means you're a "red-neck," then, thank God for "red-necks." Are you really responding to me? If you read more carefully I was ascribing that "red-neck" label to the particular phrase you turned! And no, I am not a "red-neck," I am a libertarian (with the small "L").I'd like the government mostly out of my life too but it ain't going to happen in an enterprise of this size. A self-fulfilling prophecy. If you don't think you can make something happen, you cannot make it happen. If you feel you are helpless -- you ARE helpless.You have absolute personal freedom to stay and fix it, stay and bitch, stay and engage in civil disobedience or leave. What's stopping you? Nothing is stopping me. Why do you [wrongly] assume I am doing nothing? Because you and all whom you know personally are emulating impotent beach boys?Disagree with you 50/50 on drugs. Drugs DO wreck lives -- alcohol and smokes included. Just as "friends don't let friends drive drunk," You are good at dredging up the programmed phrases. They have brainwashed you well. Congratulations!maybe friends aren't supposed to let friends shoot up either. It is a friend's prerogative to suggest to another friend to abstain. It is also the prerogative and the right for individuals to decide for themselves if they choose to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes or cigars, sniff snuff, snort or shoot drugs into their bloodstream, avail themselves of a prostitute's services, etc. Laws that treat such activities as crimes are anti-liberty, anti-individual, attempt to force one groups' definition of "morality" upon another group, and are, by their very nature, criminal -- in other words those laws are criminal themselves. The people responsible for passing such laws, promoting such laws, enforcing such laws and supporting such laws are anti-American in the original definition of the phrase and are anti-libertarian as well.As for the arguments about decriminalization ending crime and despair in the 'hood -- get real. The predator class is not going on the endangered species list just because you can buy crack for under a buck at the 7/11. And, the wrecked, drugged-out-of-reality set isn't gonna get the call for extras in the remake of Sound of Music. Easy access to drugs for millions of people who have no other refuge is not going to improve their lot. And where did I say this? Are you setting up a straw man for yourself that you can punch down? I "love" how you add additional arguments to the ones someone original posts... then proceed to tear those arguments which you added to shreds. Who are you trying to fool? Yourself? Father Terrence