KRC

Whatever you say, Sparkey.

I don't bother to read his/her posts anymore. It gives me a headache, trying to translate it into something anyone can understand.

Gotta love bureaucracy, huh?

You are allowed to have 4 books of matches, but they must be of the time where you need to strike on the back of the matchbook.

Actually, he said "used to light a fuse."

Slippery slope. You let them get away with something small, and they will try to get a little more the next time. You say, "oh, no big deal. It is just something small." Once that passes, then they will try to get another small item. Love the analogy, btw, but I thought you would have used another animal like a cat.

They also target those people as well. The first step it to get people to realize that there are more than two parties in this country. The next is to break the mentality of "I am not going to vote for them until they win." Well, they can't win if you don't vote for them, right? The Libertarians believe that each person is responsible for themselves. They can to what they want, as long as it does not infringe on the civil liberties of others. They have targeted single issue voters. One example is gun owners. The Libertarians have set up booths at gun shows in order to target those voters. Taxes is another issue. They participated in the tax rallies held this week. They will target specific voting groups in order to make them aware of how the Libertarian Party feels about those specific issues in order to increase the size of the party.

...and when the war is over, do you really believe that the civil liberties will return? If so, what actions of the federal government in recent history prove that you will increase in civil liberties as opposed to the status quo or an increase in restrictions?

Well, the Libertarian Party is specifically targetting people who are "true conservatives." These are the people who truly believe in smaller government and reduced government spending. They set up a booth at the Conservative Political Action Committee Conference in Washington in February. In fact, they were a co-sponsor of the event. There is a major push within the Libertarian Party to target disgruntled Republicans. BTW, the Libertarian Party is America's third largest and fastest growing political party.

...but yet when you overwhelmingly pass legislation like the Patriot Act to do just that, people cry about how it infringes on civil liberties. Can't have it both ways. Do you want restrictions (resulting in things like the Patriot Act) or do you want your civil liberties?

Amazing, isn't it.

I just finished a book, for my latest course, by Benjamin Netanyahu describing his ideas on combating terrorism. He feels that you need to infringe on civil liberties in order to combat terrorism. The citizens just need to accept that they will need to sacrifice civil liberties in order to combat terrorism. While it makes sense (as you mentioned in your reference to CTM), I disagree with his philosophies. This country was built on freedom and we should not give up our freedoms in pursuit of CT policies. As you mentioned, we need to accept a certain level of terror in order to keep our freedoms in place.

This thread has more than run its course. Time to close.

It is happening here in the States. The PC police are removing historical items that might be offensive. I remember some districts removing some items regarding slavery.* *NOTE: I do not have the link so don't ask.

Looks like someone can cut and paste from dictionary.com " The more conspicuous of two possible alternatives, cases...The counterpart of a proposition obtained by exchanging the affirmative for the negative quality of the whole proposition and then negating the predicate." Dictionary.com Thingy

Yup.

Since it hasn't happened yet, I am not concerned with generating alternatives.

Sucks to be you. You have to deal with all the crap a moderator goes through, but have less tools to deal with it.

So, how is that different from the Democratic method?

I think the DELETE button still works.

Neither Baker nor Powell has the backbone to whip them into shape. It is the critics of Bolton who need to generate the alternatives, not me. I like the nomination.

WTF is a simiam?

That is a potential motivation, but can it be both? Can Bolton be sent there to kick some azz. If that does not work, then he basically makes them even more irrelevant than they currently are by marginalizing them to the extent to which you mention. I agree with your last statement. Send them to Europe. They can pick up the tab and then they can just continue to make toothless resolutions and nobody will care.

The UN needs to be smacked and smacked hard. Unfortunately, the Dems seems to want someone who holds the UN in high esteem. That is not what they need right now. They need someone who is tough and is not concerned with ruffling the feathers of the UN. If not Bolton, who would you recommend?

I should have visited the author's official website like I did with Dan Brown.