Thank You, Franklin Delano Bush

lewrockwell.com ^ | 11/12 | Karen DeCoster

[ladtx]

You?re attributing something to me that I did not say. Check your posts.

[gjenkins]

Live by the state, die by the state. Rah Rah 'conservatives' will be scratching their heads ten years from now wondering "How the hell did we get here? I know, it was Clintons fault!"

[TightSqueeze]

You?re attributing something to me that I did not say. Check your posts.

I did, the italicized comments in my post #56 are directly cut from your post #49

SCOUTS HONOR!

[ladtx]

That was a quote from another poster. Somehow my html tags are not working correctly.

[rdb3]

Okay, let's cut to the chase.

I disagree with the author's assertions. But that is beside the point. The real question here is, what do YOU propose we do to guard ourselves on the terrorism issue?

Answer that, please.

[ladtx]

Wow rdb3, suddenly the room went quiet.

[AndyJackson]

I disagree with the author's assertions. But that is beside the point.

I respectfully submit that it is not beside the point, because the author did not assert anything. She hasn't the courage to do that. She tried to get her manekin-doll Bush to assert something that the real Bush did not say because she is a coward.

The question that you have posed to the poster is excellent and deserves and answer.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

GWB: "We wage a war to save civilization itself."

War is the health of the State. We must strengthen the State at the expense of all else.

What a asinine "translation". Do you honestly believe that Osama Bin Laden does not have the desire and will to destroy all civilization that has extended beyond 8th century Arabia? We are fighting to save civilization. O, wait, I get it. Lew Rockwell doesn't like civilization any more than Osama Bin Laden does, so he views Bush's statement as a threat, right?

[rdb3]

I see what you are saying. As far as any solution to the terrorist problem she asserts nothing.

I was referring to her assertions as faux-arguments concerning the President's speech on idealistic grounds.

Let's see if we get an answer.

[AndyJackson]

We won't.

[rdb3]

It definitely appears that we won't.

I guess that's my problem, my man. I go for the non-fluff, non-idealogy driven answer.

Should I go spank myself behind the woodshed for being such a bad boy? ;-)

[Cobra64]

We're being dissed from the Hillary.org crowd. Let's ignore them. That will really get their goat. Of course they can find more goats in Afghanistan.

[Verax]

Bump!

[from occupied ga]

I disagree with the author's assertions. But that is beside the point. The real question here is, what do YOU propose we do to guard ourselves on the terrorism issue?.

This is irrelevant, because a. DeCoster wasn't trying to address terrorism but the expansion of the powers of the state, and b. no one is likely to come and ask me how to solve the problems anyway, ; however, since you asked politely (unlike some) I'll give you the most obvious (obvious to all but the FAA that is)

1. ARM THE PILOTS! Easy effective.
2. LET THOSE PASSENGERS WHO HAVE CONCEALED CARRY LICENSES CARRY. If you're worried about bullets cliping a hydraulic line issue them sintered powdered metal rounds, but this gets into technology not direction.
3. FLATTEN THE TALIBAN USING THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE TO DO IT.
4. Then JUST AS IMPORTANT after the repressive regeme is ended START FREE TRADE and get rid of economic sanctions.
5. Get rid of economic sanctions everywhere. The rulers of sanctioned countries always manage to live in luxurious circumstances anyway. This will raise the overall wealth of the region leading to fewer recruits to evil causes. These are some real obvious ones.
6. Close our borders to immigration from third world countries.

All of the increased so-called "airport security" is doomed to failure, because it's just doing more of the same. Providing defense free zones for terrorists

[wasp69]

I have seen many a piece by LewRockwell put on recently that claims to state a Libertarian position by saying it is our own fault that we were struck and we should not have to sacrifice our liberties. Well, I agree but I don't believe the author made a good enough case with this emotionally driven "translation". If you are looking for someone to refute his points, I would have to say it is difficult to put together anything since this article is nothing but the authors opinion. However, I will take two:


GWB: "I said in my speech to a joint session of Congress that we are a nation awakened to danger. We're also a nation awakened to service and citizenship and compassion."

Your government has kicked around enough beehives and anthills so that it has brought upon us a disturbing new realism: terrorism upon U.S. innocents to pay for the sins of their government. We are a people that must realize it is time to give up our individual liberties and move toward an emotional and unconditional nationalist unity in support of the omnipotent State.

This to me says "we deserved it", to paraphrase, and I don't believe that for one minute we can blame an entity (government) for the actions of individuals within. If anyone should be held responsible, it should be the "statists" we tossed out in last year's elections. Those innocents did not "pay for the sins of their government", they paid for the jealousy of the psycho cavemen who flew those planes into the buildings and their clintonite enablers. Also, a show of patriotism and national unity is hardly "support of the omnipotent State" and critcism of who waves the flag and supports the President in this time is hardly throwing themselves headlong into a socialist police state. Do I doubt for one minute that some in the Legislature would love to take this oppurtunity to permanently deny us of our rights? Absolutely not. Am I ready to denounce President Bush as an anti-American anti-Christ? Absolutely not. Do I shudder at the thought of the rest of our rights being taken by the communists who are already holding elected office? Sure do.

GWB: "We have gained new heroes, those who ran into burning buildings to save others: our police and our firefighters."

Only the firefighters and police can be heroes; never can we apply the same hero status to the glorious capitalist warriors of the financial markets that died in the World Trade Center while driving the capitalist economy forward, because that would be politically incorrect to do so.

This is a patently ridiculous statement. I have yet to hear anyone not mourn the victims of this tragedy but this is the first time I have ever seen anyone try and stick the name "hero" to the everyday office worker that was just trying to get out of there while the office was burning down around them. Firefighters and Policemen, as well as American Fighting Men and Women, are trained to run towards physical danger. Pointing out that men and women who had to go to work to earn their daily bread were heros of the capitalist machine driving the economy forward is patently absurd. To say that it is not politically correct to honor them as heros also is stupid.

JMHO

[from occupied ga]

Pointing out that men and women who had to go to work to earn their daily bread were heros of the capitalist machine driving the economy forward is patently absurd.

You obviously missed the many acts of heroism that were performed by people who are not minions of the state, like the seven business men who risked their lives to take turns carrying a handicapped co-worker down 70 flights of stairs

[wasp69]

Well, I agree...

BTW, that statement means that I agree we should not have to give up our rights. It does not mean that I agree that we deserved to be struck by terrorists. Nor does it imply that I agree with most of what is written by LewRockwell. Just thought I should clear that up.

[wasp69]

You obviously missed the many acts of heroism that were performed by people who are not minions of the state, like the seven business men who risked their lives to take turns carrying a handicapped co-worker down 70 flights of stairs.

Did I, or are you just assuming? Were these individuals carrying on with their capitalist duties of driving the economy forward or were they trying to help get theselves and a co worker the hell out of a burning building? Which, by the way, they were doing while they were being passed by your "minions of the state" going the other direction.

Just what exactly is a minion of the state? I volunteered, 12 years ago, to serve my country in the armed forces. Does that make me a "minion of the state"?

[alcuin]

Look at the screen names in the thread. That explains it.

That works both ways.

[wasp69]

You obviously missed the many acts of heroism that were performed by people who are not minions of the state, like the seven business men who risked their lives to take turns carrying a handicapped co-worker down 70 flights of stairs.

Did I, or are you just assuming? Were these individuals carrying on with their capitalist duties of driving the economy forward or were they trying to help get theselves and a co worker the hell out of a burning building? Which, by the way, they were doing while they were being passed by your "minions of the state" going the other direction.

Just what exactly is a minion of the state? I volunteered, 12 years ago, to serve my country in the armed forces. Does that make me a "minion of the state"?