Posted on 10/14/2005 10:21:47 PM PDT by dangus
was I posting to you? nope this was a converstation between me and CA guy...
What? do you think we were refering to you?
Nope we were talking about farts...
What if libertarians what to light them up to smoke them? Egads!
Nope. Not a single article other than this one explaining why you don't trust Bush. But of course, I don't have access to Nexis. I'm sure Bill Buckley or some other noted deep thinker has written about your personal hangups. Perhaps those articles will resurface now that you have published your actual thoughts on this widely pondered topic.
AWB says please see post 55 again...
But I digress....
As long as it does not violate the laws of the land so be it... it is harm to them and them alone.. :)
But if libertarians light them up (in the name of the Constitution), how is that not affecting others?
The cost to employers in liability, the cost to families and to society in general seems substantial.
>> a topic of discussion that has been beaten to death for well over a week on FreeRepublic <<
>> I don't have access to Nexis. <<
Nice try. Of course, you don't need Nexis to search Free Republic archives, so what the hell does Nexis have to do with it? You made a ridiculous, false assertion, and now you can't back it up. End of story.
What assertion are you talking about?
Your arguments here are valid, the cost could be substantial all they way around. But I question as to where do we draw the line on government being big brother in this case and let personal responsibility take its course. :)
you are sad...sad and angry... admin is there anywhere we can get him a hug?
Well if you agree with me that the cost (to others) would be substantial, then there would be no personal responsibility happening, just personal irresponsibility, right?
WTF is that supposed to mean?
>> If they had 53 certain votes then why didn't they simply have the vote? You're writing about not trusting the President's judgment but you take the gang of 7's word? If they were serious about the issue they would have addressed it right then...instead they created a little gang in the middle to sign off on the President's nominees and keep the civility of their club intact. <<
I consider motives when I decide to trust someone. The gag of seven claim to be concerned with resorting to contentious rulings. I suspect they may have been cowardly, and wanted to solve the problem (end filibusters) without the political war. What are you suggesting, that they would actually support a filibuster? Chaffee and Specter, maybe. Graham? Warner?
Keep in mind, I'm not doubting anyone's word. It's just that Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush, Sr. all took gambles on "stealth" candidates, and, with the exception of Clarece Thomas, they lost every time. Is it too much to ask for an openly conservative nominee, now that we have more Senators than at any time since the 1920s?
OK, that's just plain wierd. Some guy just walked into my apartment, announced he was with Free Republic, and gave me a hug, and then left.
Well, he was a Marlon Brando Look-Alike, now that you mention it. Is there something wrong with that?
Ponderous!!!!! Ah the crux of society and democracy....all the freedom you could ever want or have, yet the responsibility to exercise that freedom responsibly so as to not impinge upon another's freedom. You are correct it would be personal irresponsibility occurring.
(I just saw an hysterically funny "South Park" rerun, featuring the National Association of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes.)
dang that was quick!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.