September 11, 2001.
--- In [email protected], "mark robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Eric, > > > > What is the basis for your position that terrorism is a greater > threat to our civil liberties than the war on drugs? I would not > ask, but there may a little problem with the credibility of your > statements. Since you earlier denied your current position by > characterizing my rebuttal as "preaching to the choir", then > admitted it without explaining the inconsistency, you might want > to supply a little support for your word; which at this time > doesn't seem real good. Surely you are not claiming that one > terrorism murder in the Netherlands is proof that terrorism is a > greater threat to our civil liberties than the war on drugs. Or > maybe I misunderstood. Maybe you intended your proud announcement > "I don't do drugs" to be the proof. But then maybe you are > confusing your personal freedom with everyone else's. But then > maybe you had not thought of the fact that even those who "don't > do drugs" are still in great danger from the drug war. Or maybe > since you don't see the issue of non-consensual force / initiated > aggression as worthy of thought, maybe you just don't care. Ah, > well. Even though most of these mysteries will likely only > deepen, I definitely need to know one thing: some kind of factual > basis for your position. Numbers would be great. What about that > book? Can't you get something from there? "Think" about it; it > may be "useful". > > > > Regarding the claim in your third paragraph regarding the drug > war's low impact on your personal life: > > Do you not have any friends, family members or close associates > that are/were victims of any of the drug-war harms I listed > before? Do you have more that were victims of terrorism? (Is THAT > your basis?) > > > > -Mark > > > > > > > > > ************ > {American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote > "not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the > case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions. > There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a > unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill > its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and > unjust lawsuits. > See www.fija.org > [Please adopt this as your own signature.] } > > > > > _____ > > I absolutely believe that Islamo-Fascism is a greater threat to > our > civil liberties than the War on Drugs. By a thousand times over. > > No, strike that. A million times over. > > I don't do drugs. (Though I do sympathize with those who do, > particularly marijuana smokers who SHOULD NOT be thrown in jail > or > even fined for their lifestyle choice.) But I do shop at Barnes & > > Nobles and Borders, ALL THE TIME. > > Well, guess what. Both chains just announced that they will not > carry the May/June issue of Free Inquiry bowing down to Islamo- > Fascist pressure, because the issue contains reprints of the > Danish > cartoons of the "Prophet Muhammed." > > Sorry, but B&N and Borders not carrying a particular magazine > because it's "too controversial" has far more of an impact on my > personal life than the War on Drugs. > > Sorry that you feel the fight against Islamo-Fascism is not as > important an issue. Sorry that you feel that Islamic extremists > murdering Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands is also not as > important. > > > > > > _____ > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
