| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71
Comments:
<0> Oc: no, here's what I think. Too much governmental power can be a danger. Not enough power exercised has, in the case of 9/11 proven a danger. Hence, measures must be taken to address the certainty of the latter, while accomodating the former to the extent possible.
<1> FT: I'd rather be free :)
<2> Antifed, Well I learned the world doesnt fit in a box
<3> call it GIO ... government intelligence organization
<4> http://www.peaktalk.com/archives/001875.php
<2> And as a pure libertarian things didnt work.
<4> Canadian Media has turned its back on the Liberal Party
<4> Hah
<5> what's really wacky
<4> That must be the last nail in the coffin
<6> http://www.constitutiontalk.org/FR/WM_M-malkin-head.jpg
<2> But there is something short of a Libertarian which I call the small l libertarian which can work
<5> is Libertarian apparently now means liberal
<1> I'm going to stick with "Live Free or Die." ..
<3> MikeJ no
<0> Libertarian means freakish paranoid delusional with no sense of perspective
<1> MikeJ: Repubs are ditching libertarians now we've become a pain, they used to embrace us ;)
<7> emminent domain is far far more likely to affect innocent americans
<8> antifed: I don't live free because I choose not to intrude on my neighbors ... CHOOSE
<0> and no sense of standards
<2> Libertarian, Randist, Anarcho Capitalist, All utopias.
<0> utopiae!
<2> Yeah
<5> interestingly enough, i have a suspicion alito is a closet libertarian
<2> Seriously
<8> Free: I'm not a utopian
<9> ++http://myspace-174.vo.llnwd.net/00326/47/17/326277174_l.jpg my new pic for those interested
<10> FreeTrade: Pure libertarians are not practical. Even libertarians here on #politics have admitted support of arrest without judicial oversight of US citizens inside the US if the administration ***erts (without proof) links to terrorism.
<8> Libertarianism is not even remotely utopian
<1> FT: I do not consider smaller, nay - less federal government to utopian at all
<5> about the only thing he told the committee was he supports the ultimate right to privacy
<2> OcDoc, I believe you are much more idealistic and utopian than I am.
<5> erm
<5> ultimately supports the right to privacy
<0> it so is
<5> inverted my words there
<1> FT: the Libertarian view on the size and scope of Federal government is NOT utopian. but practical
<0> it's totally unrealistic.
<0> and impractical
<11> Timur: Why?
<8> FreeTrade: it is a system that minimizes the power of government to the minimum necessary to achieve the purpose of the citizens
<2> If you dont think this is a time of war, Albeit not with a country. We are at war. its not imaginary
<7> mike: the question is, does he ( like most ) believe "right to privacy" ONLY applies to abortion?
<1> Timur: why, you need some federal hand out?
<5> no
<11> Timur: The system of government the founders envisoned in 1787 was 'impractical' for what reason?
<0> because not everyone can handle total maximum freedom well enough, that's why.
<1> Timur: afraid you'll lose your food stamps? :)
<5> it was the right to die question
<5> frankly, his answer suprised me
<2> And if ever the constitution allows for using goverment power its when there is a war.
<0> I have a job, thanks little
<11> Timur: Tough ****.
<5> and i think the senators
<8> FreeTrade: it is the only system that does not inherently grow government power for the benefit of the governors
<5> cause kyl made him restate his answer
<0> icmps: indeed, tough for the utopians
<7> "right to privacy" should apply to anything that doesn't directly intrude on others
<4> Once hailed as a man of integrity, over the past 18 months his statements have become so outrageous, so laughable, that many in the media have developed a strong contempt for the man. And it is entirely his own fault. Much like the Iraqi Information Minister, nobody actually believes anything Martin says anymore. No wonder the Liberal message isn't getting through when its primary conduit is tainted goods.
<2> I am much less worried about a president spying on me while at war with terrorists than I am Legislatures taking my guns right now
<1> Timur: ahh, so the government exists to guide us poor stupid folk, who are unable to handle being totally free.. gotcha.
<11> Timur: Because some people "cant handle" themselves in no way makes a given ideology impractical.
<2> which is much more probable
<7> :"right to privacy" should include everything from growing pot in your own home, to building your own machine guns.
<1> Timur: ever heard of a socialist?
<2> Or taxing me
<8> FreeTrade: the citizens of the US have been at war in that sense since 1520
<0> icmps: sure it does.
<11> Timur: NOTHING about a leviathan serves to STOP that.
<8> er 1620
<3> "the beurocracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding beurocracy"
<10> FreeTrade: I'm a bit surprised your city allows you to own a gun.
<5> well
<0> people's stupidity and dysfunction affects other people, hence, rules.
<2> Overtaxing me is much more serious a violation of my civil liberties and I know its going on.
<0> it's what it is for a reason
<11> YOU are the one being with unrealistic idealism..
<5> the really funny thing about bureacracy
<7> FT: Oh yes, you live in california.. you HAVE no 2nd amendment rights period :-/
<11> -being
<5> is the new medicare plane
<5> plan*
<5> it was designed to reduce bureacracy right?
<7> FT: i would *LOVE* it if I could say "Okay, tap my phones.. cut all my taxes to 5% total " :-)
<3> icmps ... so are you a libertarian now? reformed from anarchist? :)
<0> so, blather as much as you want about how wrong and unjustified it is, but it won't change unless people's behavior changes
<2> When there are so many real violations of my civil liberties that I am worried about the prime responsibility of the federla government which is protecting us in time of war.
<11> "its what it is for a reason" and yet, what can you point to that proves we are better off with our government like it is?
<5> FT - that's all fine and good
<5> the question isnt really whether or not we should wiretap
<1> icmps: good to see you.
<2> The constitution says that in a war and we were attacked first, that we can suspend habeous corpus.
<3> icmps we can point to Saudi Arabia; and China
<8> Free: they're doing BOTH to you
<11> KoBushi: No, pragmatically I'm libertarian. Ideally, I'm anarchist.
<2> People spy in peacetime, that bothers mer
<5> its whether or not we can trust the administration not to take it too far
<0> I can prove that rules exist for a reason, because lots of people don't follow decent good behavior consistently without them.
<3> 2 good examples of who we are better off than
<5> as Nixon did
<2> Idf they are going to spy I want it to be in wartime
<0> it's obvious, for anyone who's not sociopathic, isolated and delusional.
<2> and to me intuitively the most intelligent way to beat this kind of terrorist is by the use of intelligence.
<1> Timur: libertarians are happy with rules :)
<0> anti: they are?
<2> and espionage is a primary means to defeat this enemy
<1> Timur: we just want smaller more localized government.
<0> not the ones I know of
<1> Timur: of course, we're not anarchists.
<0> mhm
<5> I mean
<1> Timur: www.lp.org .. read up yourself.
<0> close enough
<10> I found a web site that shows me how to do Crips hand signs. Now I can be recognized as one of them!
<11> Timur: Prove to me why libertarianism in so far as it advocates LIMITED GOVERNMENT (similar to the foundation of the country) is unrealistic.. If it's so obvious.
<0> nah, not interested, but thanks
<1> Timur: the Libertarian Party is very clear, and well you're not.
<7> OH MY GOD.. that's a horrible horrible call
<2> And I would not block my government from its constitutional purpose because Of espionage with the enemy speaking to americans. or non citizens in america.
<0> I'm not going to recreate reality for you, icmps.
<4> Corrections officials in Canada are concerned over the access that prisoners now have to soft-core pornography on satellite TV. Many of these prisoners are *** offenders who are undergoing treatment.
<4> Wtf
<2> I am a small l Libertarian.
<0> go out and deal with people and situations. If that doesn't validate it, then neverm ind. :)
<4> Something is wrong in this country
<5> FreeTrade - no one says we shouldnt stop the libertarians at all costs
<4> Its 12 years of Liberal govt
<2> That means I am flexible and not tied to a ideology
<5> The main question is can we trust the government not to take spying too far
<11> Timur: You made the ***ertion, it's your responsibility to back it up. I'm not the only person here who disagrees with you--so I evidently am not so disconnected from reality.
<7> herzen: yea.. canada's solution: ban all "soft core pornography" on any satellite that could possible reach canada
<2> Im not out to stop the libertarians, I am one
<1> Timur: I prefer limited federal government, that is all.
<5> If the UC San Diego thing is true, that definately seems important
<0> Herz: better to have them wank to that than rape each other, perhaps, or use the energy of ***ual frustraiton to commit other acts of violence (would be the counterargument, I'd imagine)
<0> anti: fine
<1> Timur: very limited, as in - limited to the powers our founding fathers wanted.
<3> Herzen ... why d they have TV in prison at all?
<2> I just prefer on issues of politics to side with more reasonable minds in my opinion.
<2> Again
<11> I just want to know in what way the current system serves to make our lives better than would be under a very limited government.
<0> icmps: I'm not making any ***ertion, I'm cool with things as they are.
<4> KoBushi, Beats me, but check this out: http://www.conservativelife.com/blog/media/tattoo.jpg
<2> I woudl be astounded and upset if the government was not eavesdropping on known al queda connections.
<0> as a response to people and their behaviors
<2> Which is exactly what its been doing
<2> to not do so to me would be a failure of the main reason we have a government.
<11> Timur: You ***erted that libertarianism is unrealistic idealism.. because "people cant handle their freedom" -- so, in what way does the current system serve to solve that in realistic, specified terms?
<11> exemplified terms, too.
<12> Free: for the umpteenth time, why can't they get wiretap permission to do that?
<0> government largely reflects the behavior of its people. If the people are all strictly observant of a normative set of rules, then government will tend to be minimal. If not, then it'll be larger.
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
sheduling a task in windowsxp
#politics
+fedora +kernel line +interactive mode
#firebird
trrkx
#mirc
#worldcup
#debian
pcu-southern copper dividend
#3dsmax
|
|
