![]() | This page was proposed for deletion by Apocheir ( talk · contribs) on 8 October 2023. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Willmcw, i don't quite understand the concern, but I defer to you. I meant no harm. I'm a newbie... -- Nskinsella 17:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Pilon is NO Libertarian. he is a Reagan era justice appointee who has been given a cushy Cato rock. Just because Cato says they are libertarian, doesn't make it so. The same for Pilon.
Cato's own May 30, 2002 release, which offered a nonlibertarian defense of the Bush sponsored post 911 extra FBI warrantless domestic spying upon US citizens, should be clear and convincing evidence of this: " No Problem With New FBI Surveillance Guidelines, Scholar Says".
Without pointing out Pilon's past in the Reagan Admin, and this Cato blurb, this article is deceptive propaganda, which serves Cato's interests, in this case, not the truth.
See: Roger Pilon v DOJ
Content regarding Pilon's philosophy can be [ here]. It was removed from argumentation ethics, and can be integrated with some adaptations. -- MeUser42 ( talk) 19:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This page was proposed for deletion by Apocheir ( talk · contribs) on 8 October 2023. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Willmcw, i don't quite understand the concern, but I defer to you. I meant no harm. I'm a newbie... -- Nskinsella 17:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Pilon is NO Libertarian. he is a Reagan era justice appointee who has been given a cushy Cato rock. Just because Cato says they are libertarian, doesn't make it so. The same for Pilon.
Cato's own May 30, 2002 release, which offered a nonlibertarian defense of the Bush sponsored post 911 extra FBI warrantless domestic spying upon US citizens, should be clear and convincing evidence of this: " No Problem With New FBI Surveillance Guidelines, Scholar Says".
Without pointing out Pilon's past in the Reagan Admin, and this Cato blurb, this article is deceptive propaganda, which serves Cato's interests, in this case, not the truth.
See: Roger Pilon v DOJ
Content regarding Pilon's philosophy can be [ here]. It was removed from argumentation ethics, and can be integrated with some adaptations. -- MeUser42 ( talk) 19:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)