[extropy-chat] Politics: US talks of suspending elections

Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 12 22:58:22 UTC 2004

--- Gregory Propf <gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >
> >It will be funny, for about five seconds. Then I'll have to admit to
> >all the Birchers whose conspiracy theories about bankers, lawyers,
> the
> >ultra-rich, and communism, I disparage so much, that they were
> right...
> >
> >  
> >
> This is just an ad hominem.  That the Birchers might have been 
> excessively vigilant in their theorizing about the dangers of an 
> especially powerful central authority does not mean that such dangers
> do not exist.  It is the height of irony to me that "libertarians"
> today are often the most vocal supporters of fascism.  One of the
> reasons  I won't be moving to New Hampshire anytime soon.

"fascism"? What, pray tell, is your definition of the moment for the
word? Usually I hear such words spoken by communists when we
libertarians object to their confiscation of property rights.

> >>> 
> >>>FYI: The Democrats invented 'racial' profiling. Hallowed liberal,
> >>>Robert Kennedy, as US Attorny General under his brother, in
> >>>investigating KKK anti-civil rights activities, ordered police and
> >>>national guard units across the South to profile white males at
> >>>highway roadblocks and other locations, on the logic that women
> >>> and blacks and
> >>>other minorities could not belong to the KKK.... why was it okay
> >>then?
> >is is a red herring.
> >
> >On the contrary, the other significant instance of racial profiling
> >in
> >20th century US was, of course, the Japanese internment during WWII
> >under the direction of the Democrat, FDR.
> >
> You still don't have a point.  What FDR did does not justify the
> actions of the Bush administration.

You still don't understand the US. We are a Common Law nation. Under
the Constitution, if something isn't specified, it doesn't mean you
can't do it, or can do it, it means you first go by what historical
precedents there are in the Common Law, particularly WRT individual
liberties (and there is ample precedent in the Common Law in dealing
with activities of traitors and enemy combatants, most of which are
actually quite grisly, which is why the Geneva Conventions were created
in the first place).

The fact is that the actions of FDR and RFK, or of Bush, may be
abhorrent to your particular morality, but they are not contrary to the
Constitution, the Common Law, or the Geneva Conventions, because all
recognise that violent insurgencies are a special case.

Of course, I'm not surprised by your response. Your side of the table
is always of a mind of "Do what I say, not what I do."

Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                         -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list