Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 13 May 2001 00:00:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1097 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> And why do you choose to twist what *I* say?
I don't need to twist things, I even showed you your own words exactly as
you wrote them.
> You misquoted and distorted me, without a cite, then had the audacity to say
> you were "protecting my privacy" by not citing me. That's rich.
That's a distortion and misquote right there! I said I did cite your example
indirectly but that I "respected your anonymity" by leaving your name out.
This is exactly what I wrote in reply to Bruce regarding "Red Dawn":
"Hah! Classic 80's Cold War paranoia, with Patrick Swayze to boot! The sad
thing is that paranoia helps sell weapons. I have no doubt that our country
makes enemies when none are there just to validate military spending. I
looked back at one LUGNETer's post talking about a space-based weapons
platform to protect America from Iraqi Scuds. Reality or paranoia?"
And then I showed you your own posts to indicate where you used the example
of Iraqi "Scuds" as a reason why we need a better missile defense system.
This all ties into my point of using paranoia to justify military spending.
> I use the word belligerent to describe a participant in a war (an accepted
> diplomatic usage, by the way, you could look it up) and that makes *me*
> belligerent?
Really, are we at war with China? Were you being belligerent? Isn't this a
biased notion?
> You say you want to move away from MAD as a deterrent but you then say that
> building a defensive system that might reduce the risk of rogue nations
> causing havoc is "warmongering". Think about what you're saying, man.
No, warmongering is the angle of charging other nations for missile
intercept services. My angle is brokering better peace by getting rid of
such weapons altogether. However, that is near impossible when people have
greed in their hearts and somehow believe in war as a sound capital venture.
> You say that shuttle launches seriously damage the ozone layer
I said launches punched holes in the upper atmosphere and that we should
approach the matter with caution so we don't do further harm to that already
fragile part of the earth...
> (a totally
> debunked piece of bad science, by the way, not even worthy of John Pike,
> much less the readership here) but when someone says "yah, let's have less
> launches in the long run, by supporting whatever big project will get
> manufacturing off the planet so we don't have to boost up extruded aluminum
> shapes" you claim we "need to solve problems down here first". That's the
> standard luddite response to anything space related. How were you going to
> solve those problems, by eating your seed corn??? Think about what you're
> saying, man.
What's the big rush, unless we are resorting to the cliche arguement that
"It's all about jobs?" I'm saying proceed with caution and foresight, not
from the paranoid mindset of the military. Our "next big step" with regard
to space endevours must not begin until all of mankind has established a
doctrine of strict humanitarianism and sound environmentalism as well.
Historically, militarized projects end up only serving greedy, inhumane
purposes. You say we're ready, I say we're not.
> I expect your response is going to be that I'm some sort of anti Palestinian
> Zionist warmonger who supports whatever cockamamie scheme Bush comes up
> with, right? That would be 4 different misconceptions in one assertion. Give
> it a rest.
If that's not paranoia...
> In my last post I tried to explain that even though I can think of some good
> reasons to build brilliant pebbles, I'm not convinced yet that we should.
> Not for the reasons being offerred at this point, anyway.
Then would you agree that there are higher moral issues at stake here?
> Dan, I admire your warship models and your passion, but not your debating >style. Calm down, stop with the standard anti US rants and actually try to
> understand what people are saying instead of coming out with kneejerk stuff
> that makes you look not very well informed.
Understood. That's your take on it, my friend, but I cannot see how my
debating style is any different than yours. And I surely cannot see how I'm
any more or less informed than you. Perhaps I've taken a watchdog approach
in regard to our foreign policy, but you shamefully distort my patriotism as
"standard anti U.S. rants."
First of all, it's grossly insulting. When you dismiss another man's
statements as "rants," you only show your own arrogance and caustic attitude
towards those who disagree with you.
Second of all, there's nothing anti-American about wanting your country to
do the right thing. As an American, it is my patriotic duty to stand up for
"inalienable human rights" and this extends to all people of the earth. We
shred our own Constitution each time we carry out or participate in
injustices and exploitation of other peoples for our own economic gain. We
shouldn't abuse our wealth and power by influencing change in the world that
exclusively benefits our economy. That may work to destroy us in the long run.
Dan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
