Comments on: Inauguration Speech: Trotskyite Christian Big-Government Libertarianism

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:14:00 +0000

John: For a second, there, I was tempted to explain how you misconstrued the meaning of “example” and “owe” in that context.
Then I thought better of it:
you don’t wanna hear it, and I don’t feel like typing it out.

By: John

John — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:38:00 +0000

His vision is flawed especially how it is interrupted by Will’s last line. “Moreover, we also owe it to the rest of the world, for the American example of freedom is the most powerful force for human liberation.” I agree with some of the propositions but it is a far stretch to this conclusion. Why do we owe the rest of the world more ownership and is our example a powerful force for human liberation, if so why aren’t more countries liberated by a simple example. Either examples don’t liberate or the American example of freedom is not liberating.

By: Tom Hanna

Tom Hanna — Sat, 22 Jan 2005 15:03:00 +0000

Every government ‘maintains the *option* and implied *threat*…” That’s the nature of government. Any government.

By: McClain

McClain — Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:41:00 +0000

Oh THAT’S the question!
Right….

By: Gregorus

Gregorus — Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:54:00 +0000

Just because the civil liberties of Michael Moore and Andrew Sullivan have not been curtailed does not mean that a politically accepted system for their curtailment is not being set up.

The question is whether the government maintains the *option* and implied *threat* of indefinite detention, torture, etc, not whether it actually does it.

By: McClain

McClain — Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:46:00 +0000

I was hoping for:
“Yeah, we have a list and, yeah, ‘Saudi’ Arabia, you’re next.”
But I’ll take what I can get….

By: Tom Hanna

Tom Hanna — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:51:00 +0000

“How do you square Michael Moore and, apparently, Andrew Sullivan with ‘the curtailment of civil liberties in a war on terror’?” might be a better question.

By: Tom Hanna

Tom Hanna — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

“How do you square Michael Moore and, apparently, Andrew Sullivan with ‘the curtailment of civil liberties in a war on terror’?” might be a better question.

By: McClain

McClain — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I was hoping for:
“Yeah, we have a list and, yeah, ‘Saudi’ Arabia, you’re next.”
But I’ll take what I can get….

By: Gregorus

Gregorus — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Just because the civil liberties of Michael Moore and Andrew Sullivan have not been curtailed does not mean that a politically accepted system for their curtailment is not being set up.

The question is whether the government maintains the *option* and implied *threat* of indefinite detention, torture, etc, not whether it actually does it.

By: McClain

McClain — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Oh THAT’S the question!
Right….

By: Tom Hanna

Tom Hanna — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Every government ‘maintains the *option* and implied *threat*…” That’s the nature of government. Any government.

By: John

John — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

By: Tom Rants

Tom Rants — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

http://www.tom-hanna.org/?p=434

I’m amazed to read Peggy Noonan being critical of Bush’s Inaugural Address. I thought it was the about the closest thing I’d heard to Ronald Reagan at his best since, well, Ronald Reagan. Oddly, it sounded to me like a Peggy Noonan speech. It’s inter…