Debate : 10818


Off-Topic / Debate / 10818

Libertarian Propaganda —Larry Pieniazek

There isn't enough to debate around here these days ( grin) so here's some fodder. Rather than excerpting, here it is in its entireity. Note in particular point #3, which I think may be the most significant of the 5, although I'm rather fond of #1 (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —James Aldrich

(...) Gosh Larry, I can't find anything there with which to disagree. JSA -- Green Bay Lacrosse-- Play hard; play often. (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Matthew Gerber

(...) I imagine Larry getting a new computer peripherial..."The Trouble Stirring Up USB 2.0 Ladle and Firewire (800MBps) Pot To Stir ™"...he hooks it up and thinks to himself ..ooOO{Now, where did I put that last LP e-mail?} 8?) (...) If you do (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) In a sense? A bunch of people died for no good reason and most Americans don't even care! It is way more than tragic "in a sense." (...) The kids are not the only tragedy. The adults are too. As is the fact that such a miscarriage of justice (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Matthew Gerber

Before reading this post in reply to Christopher Weeks reply to my reply to Larry Pieniazek's original post, please read my reply to Larry's reply to my reply to his original post here: (URL) . It will help solidify all of my post here. Warning, the (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Larry Pieniazek

I have to dig into Matt's last post and this one in more depth... right now i have time only to say one thing... (...) This seems to be a GREAT site, thanks for digging it up, KoC (King of Cites.. er, maybe that's not the best acronym... how about (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) It is an interesting read. Thanks for the URL. (...) You have quite an attitude about this, don't you? Well, I don't have proof. What I have is hundreds of conversations on the matter and an overall impression that across demographics, most (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Matthew Gerber

Here we go again. Sorry for the length, but some folks need to have facts pounded in nice and tight before they begin to comprehend. (...) Then, don't pretend to know my mind. Maybe I need to put an (s) after each statement meant to be sarcastic? (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) What do you gain by being smug in your insults? Why not either discuss the topic, or not? (...) I haven't and won't pretend to know your mind. I will continue to assume that you mean what you say. I can hardly do anything but. (...) Maybe you (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Matthew Gerber

This will be my last long post in this debate. If anyone has points to debate further with me, please break them down into smaller bite size chunks, where I can reply quickly. I have devoted far too much time to these posts, and it is starting to (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Waco (time for a Subject change already) —Tom Stangl

(...) Yes, you've shown yourself to be the polar opposite of someone else in this forum, and I can't understand why you're not debating HIM. To you, it's "all hail the gubmint, which can do no wrong" or "if it's a law, it must be right". The both of (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Waco (time for a Subject change already) —Matthew Gerber

(...) Tom, I've made my points, and stand by them. You are attempting to put words in my mouth, and I'm not sure why. Try reading and understanding BEFORE you type next time, please, 'cause I don't appreciate it. (...) Not even interested in having (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda (was incorrectly referred to as SPAM elsewhere in the thread) —Larry Pieniazek

I have been playing too long in other branches of the tree and neglected to give this post my special once over... (...) Let's skip Waco (Chris is dealing with your misconceptions about it just fine). The general assertion is that government (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda (was incorrectly referred to as SPAM elsewhere in the thread) —Matthew Gerber

Warning! I am replying to Larry Pieniazek here! Of course, that means lots of quoted text is included to keep the context clear, and this post is a doozy! You have been warned! (...) *sniff* I feel SO special *sob* (gently wipes small tear of (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

From my UK perspective, perhaps the best way to “prevent the next Timothy McVeigh” is to crack down on the over-armed libertarian (although some are also anti-semitic /white supremacists) "militiamen" compounds which populate hilltops in places (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Kevin Bannister

(...) Isn't that supposed to be what set McVeigh off in the first place (Waco, Ruby Ridge)? (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

(...) What "set McVeigh off" may well have been the paranoia which surrounds these events. You should not forget that McVeigh and those at Ruby Ridge had links with libertarian white supremacists. The fact that the FBI has been clumsy in the past, (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Which "libertarian" white supremacists were these? The viewpoints are totally incompatible. That's twice in this thread you've made this false connection. ++Lar (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

(...) It is based the a serialisation of a book by Jon Ronson : (URL) read serialisation of the book and heard an interview with him in the BBC. He is clear that those who were at Ruby Ridge and Waco are "heroes of the libertarian movement". (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) 100% (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

(...) Avoiding the question I think. Interestingly, I searched for "militia libertarian racist" on google and it came up with this site: (URL) you search that page for occurrences of "libertarian" you will see that I was not all wrong. Scott A (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Yes and no. "Coloured" (sic: colored <g>) is a really poor term that isn't particularly used in America. It carries the implication that europeans are "normal" and others are not. In the sense Larry meant it, I agree. But in the sense that you (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

(...) Thanks for the pointer. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, heck--you've met pretty much the entire Party. (URL) Dave! (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Why? Was the message of the SCLC less valid because SCLC members were mostly black? Was the message of AIM less valid because AIM was mostly native american? I resent the implication that groups need to be "ethnically balanced" to have valid (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

(...) Ok, what is SCLC or AIM? (...) How do you know that we are more white - you only assume (as I do). Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

(...) Ok, what is SCLC or AIM? (...) How do you know that we are more white - you only assume (as I do). That is not really the question (LUGNET does not attempt to represent the views of society). The question is : Why is the LP so "white"? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) American groups working for political or social change. What exactly they were advocating isn't important to my point. (...) No, I count noses in fest pictures. It may be an invalid inference from that to the makeup of lugnet as a whole but (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

(...) I would like to be the judge of that. (...) Hmm. So you are keeping a count? What sort of a person would do that? It is not a thing I worry about. (...) Not much more. I have been to 1 fest. I think the makeup was ~10-20% scottish, and (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I *don't care* what the makeup of LUGNET or the hobby is. I never said I did. I just said it wasn't the same as the overall population. When you challenged me I went off and counted noses at that point in order to see if my hunch was right. It (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

(...) I did not challenge you. This is all noise, BUT saying "I count noses in fest pictures" make it sound like you do it all the time. I'm glad you don't. (...) This is all noise, BUT where did you get the averages from? (...) It does for the LP (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Dave voiced some concerns, which I addressed. Your contribution, on the other hand, consists of "why why why why why why". I had a 3 year old who did that, but he grew out of it. ++Lar (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

(...) You don't know the answer to his/her questions either? tut. tut. You are full of opinion, but you seldom wish to justify it. Perhaps you need to think a little deeper, rather that doing a simple cut 'n' paste with LP dogma? Answer my points (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

(...) Let's start with an very very easy one: From: (URL) It was, at least for the 20+ fests, meetings, events, (...) Scott: This is all noise, BUT where did you get the averages from? =*= Next we will do a very easy one. Scott A (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Not going to play this game any more, sorry. I've justified my assertion that LUGNET members are more white and more male than the averages to my satisfaction, and surely to the satisfaction of any reasonable person. If it's not to *your* (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

(...) Like I say Larry, you are full of opinion which you just cannot justify. All I am asking for, on this one, is a simple reference – but you are simply unable to mange it. (...) ...another insult - how adult. (...) I think it is a fair question (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Oh, I'm able, all right. I could just go to the UN site or wherever and quote demographics. I'm just unwilling to continue to spar with you about the assertion that LUGNET is demographically more white and more male than the norm because it's (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) \ (...) Water vapor. Bruce (we'll skip the dicussion on light absorbtion and leave it for some anal-retentive type) :-) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Um, who would that be? We don't have any of *those* here, do we? :-) PS, I think you spelled absorption wrong. :-) ++Lar (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Jeff Jardine

(...) Actually... Although water and the sky appear blue for the same reason, it is not directly related to water itself (in vapour or liquid form). Oxygen, nitrogen, and water molecules are all approximately the same size, which happens to be just (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) "(we'll skip the dicussion on light absorbtion and leave it for some anal-retentive type)" (restored snip) I knew some anal-retentive type would take the bait.... :-) Bruce (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

(...) Wow. A delayed reaction insult. It was just sitting there saying "don't touch me". Scott A (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Jeff Jardine

(...) ? But I didn't even mention absorption! Blathering on about absorption when discussing a phenomenon that is entirely due to scattering - now THAT would be anal-retentive. ;) Jeff J (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is the sky blue in Libertopia —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) You're only proving my point. :-) Beside, the sky isn't blue. Bruce (lost somewhere in the SoCal haze) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Shiri Dori

(...) Yep... the molecules in the atmosphere are the ones causing the sky's blue appearance. That's also why the sun appears yellow on the background of the sky (blue and yellow are complementary/opposite on the RGB scale, which is what our eyes (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Nor any drop to drink —Dave Schuler

(...) That's not at all true--there's a toilet down the hall with blue water, and it's indoors. (...) <cap ish> adj. of or pertaining to a cape Dave! (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nor any drop to drink —Shiri Dori

(...) LOL... I was gonna say something like "unless you have food coloring in *your* water"... I wouldn't drink anything that looked blue, but maybe Chris's dog would. I don't think it's good form to drink out of toilets, even for dogs! (...) (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Why the sky is blue (was: Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)) —Jeff Jardine

(...) Well... the colour of the Sun will be subjective to how each individual perceives colour, but it's peak output definitely lies in the range that most people would call yellow. It is a whitish-yellow, because the Sun also radiates at all other (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the sky is blue (was: Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Art 101: large bodies of water take on the color of the sky. If the sky is gray, the water is gray, not blue. Lemme see.... (URL) down a bit - they even use the gray sky/gray water in the example. Bruce (Arrr...rrrgh! I've become (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the sky is blue —Jeff Jardine

(...) That is misinformation! Water DOES have an intrinsic blue colour: (URL) Learning" indeed! However, I must apologise for my earlier starement that the bluish tinge of water is due to scattering. It is due to selective absorption (there's the (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the sky is blue —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) "Why the *ocean* is blue" is not quite the same as the three sources you note, which all address "why *water* is blue". The phenomenom of the ocean taking on the color of the sky (in general) has been long observed and recorded by artists. (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the sky is blue —Jeff Jardine

(...) I've done so on many occasions, seriously trying to answer this very question (is the ocean blue, or is it reflecting the sky?) for myself. One tends to do this sort of thing when studying atmospheric science at the graduate level. There are (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the sky is blue —Larry Pieniazek

(...) ... (...) ... This is off-topic for .debate! FUT .geek ++Lar (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ... (...) All (...) Really? (...) I am not asking what you *could* do, I am asking what you *did* do. (...) Nope, this is an illustration of how hard it is to get you to justify yourself on an exceedingly minor (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

Tom answered you quite adequately already. You, however, don't seem to grasp just how ridiculous you look for repeatedly asking me to justify my opinion that LUGNET is more white and more male than the averages when everyone else in the thread has (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

(...) Really? (...) I am not asking you to justify that - not even anything near that difficult. As I said before, I am only trying to get you to justify your statements. I have became tired of all your unsubstantiated facts and hollow opinion. (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Duane Hess

(...) Why does LUGNET (in general) attract well educated white males? From my observations, Larry is right. LUGNET does not represent the statistical make-up of the countries in which it resides. Is this due to education? Economical status? (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

(...) It may be that that is the adult lego market? (...) Indeed. I think that starting point for looking at the background of the users of Lugnet is to look at the users on the internet and of Lego. Looking at Lugnet alone is useless in my opinion. (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Dave Schuler

(...) Are you implying a causative relation between higher education and some realization that the Libertarian Party is the "correct" path? I'm not trying to misread you, but I want to understand if this is what you're asserting. Regardless (and (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Duane Hess

(...) No, I'm just alluding to the fact that certain individuals are attracted to certain types of groups. Nothing more. (...) I can't debate anything regarding the LP. I'm largely ignorant to it's political agenda and demographic, which seem to be (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Frank Filz

(...) One thing that I saw as interesting, though I haven't explored the meaning completely, but the chair of the North Carolina Libertarian Party is a woman. She was also their candidate for governor. Of course in the picture on this page: (URL) (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Tom Stangl

(...) So what you are saying is that someone of one ethnicity can't think up ideas that benefit people outside of that ethnicity? Scott, THINK about what you type before you do so, this is making you look extremely stupid. (...) You haven't (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Dave Schuler

(...) Allow me to elucidate: the LP claims that it aims to help all society, yet the overwhelming majority of LP members are middle class white males. If, as has been asserted, the LP really is (or will be at some indeterminate future time) for the (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Tom Stangl

(...) I in no way, shape, or form was lumping you in with Scott. I would never do that to you, Scott is in a class all by himself. (...) Retract away, Dave! (see, I can pull a ++Lar too!) Scott seems to want to state that a predominantly white male (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Dave Schuler

(...) Nice! Anyone can use Dave! in a sentence--the real art comes in making it appear that my ! naturally wound up at the end! (...) Well, in that case, you're a big silly doofus-head. See? I can be inflammatory, too! 8^) (I think I've over-stepped (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) That comment was bang on, as they say in the UK. Nicely worded, Dave! (...) Yes, what is it with you today? First the whole stoking a fire under the NEA without regard to which one, then this inflammatory thing? I'm burning to know what is (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Um, that's not a Lar (0) I don't think, as while there ARE Doubting Thomases (1) I don't know of any Retracting Daves (2). 0 - much less a ++Lar 1 - prominent Figures of Speech 2 - and the image there is one I'd just rather not get into, er, (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

(...) So where do Dave and I differ on this? How is there a class is difference between our views? (...) Where did I say that? Where? I think they are less likely too. I think any ideas they would have would be treated very sceptically. But I do not (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Dave Schuler

(...) Since I share Bruce's misgivings on this subject, I'll mention a few thoughts, too. The validity or invalidity of the LP's views is, of course, wholly independent of the racial, cultural, age, or gender makeup of the party, but that's not what (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Let's dig into that a bit... Is that an accurate supposition? That is, *are* there things that are "good for you" that you wouldn't necessarily choose to do? We know that's true in the individual case, right? I know that exercising more and (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

(...) I have no idea what the SCLC is, so I have no real opinion on it. (...) One could argue that you are using your memebership fee to invest in a Libertarian future. Your fellow members may hope for a return on that investment in the longer or (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

(...) Indeed. The notion that a bunch of white guys can sit around constructing a libertarian dreamland which will be on benefit to all is a complete anathema to me. Scott A (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Yup, that's pretty much it - and let me add that I don't regard the Libertarian Party as a white supremacist group in the slightest. I'd said what I did in part because I think the Libertarian Party *for it's own benefit* needs to address the (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda (was incorrectly referred to as SPAM elsewhere in the thread) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Let's stipulate that, for the sake of discussion. What can be done? Or that is, how far can the LP go? Remember that the LP is the "Party of Principle". A lot of big internal spats happen because some action or message is proposed which seems (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda (was incorrectly referred to as SPAM elsewhere in the thread) —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> ** bump ** (from UBB boards, the practice of replying to something that you hoped would get a reply so that the thread floats to the top of the list of things again) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) South Coast Liesure Club? Sunny California Libertarian Clique? Advanced Ideas Mechanics? Accuracy in Media? Asian Internet Marketing? I don't speak initial. Well, solved the second with my Apache buddy literally walking by as I was typing (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Pivotal in the anti segregation movement. (...) I think, stated that way, it's a fair enough (but not particularly important) question. I don't know "the answer" but I advanced my theory already. To (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

(canceled) —Scott Arthur

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

(...) I doubt they have LP support! (...) What are you saying? Are you saying those "People currently on welfare" are the ones not joining the LP? i.e. "People currently on welfare" are all but white males? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Doubt away, Thomas. You'd be wrong, though, if you thought that the LP was in favor of government mandated segregation. (...) Just giving off the cuff examples of some classes of people or organizations that might benefit from change but are (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Tom Stangl

(...) Scott, Some of your inferences are going beyond asinine. I'll stop there, because all I'll do is give you the satisfaction of getting a rise out of someone, which is all you seem to want to do here. If you have a middle name, you should change (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

(...) You are wrong. Youch, an insult! (...) Youch, an insult! Go back and read the 1st message in this thread, you will see this whole "debate" is a troll. BTW - I have no middle name. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) It would seem to me that you don't think it particularly important is an illustration of the problem. (...) And long term detriments may not be visible to all the Libertarian Party members. I did give a specific example (Libertarians allowing (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Might have missed the conclusion of that thread if it was in a different thread but haven't seen a demonstration of how this is actually detrimental (to anyone other than the business owner foolish enough to do it) yet. (...) (URL) queen of (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Four messages back from the one I'm typing now. You haven't seen a demonstration of how this is detrimental?!? Did you miss the reasons for the civil rights movement? Ensuing riots in reaction to racism? I pointed out earlier that you get that (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Oh, me too. I just don't see it as following from allowing (not requiring) businesses (with no barriers to entry) to choose who to serve. Jim Crow laws REQUIRED businesses to discriminate. ++Lar (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) *Some* did. Note the first one listed here: (URL) I'm sure you know that businesses that *wanted* to discriminate were behind those laws - typifying all businesses in these states as innocent victims isn't exactly accurate. My point was that (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) On the topic of disenfranchisement... I feel pretty disenfranchised. Bush can take his 600 bucks and stick it. (...) "No person or corporation shall require any white female nurse to nurse in wards or rooms in hospitals, either public or (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Dave Schuler

(...) To which case are you alluding? Dave! (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Frank Filz

(...) Ruby Ridge. (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Dave Schuler

(...) Thanks! It was the neutral, non-partisan summation that confused me. 8^) Dave! (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Well no wonder you feel disenfranchised - the American people rejected Dubya both on a majority and plurality base, and he's still the president. :-( But on a greater level, you feel disenfranchised because the political philosophy you support (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) That's not exactly true. It may not be mustering votes, but like I said, it doesn't have to win elections, per se. Peace and freedom ARE winning. So I can feel disenfranchised for my own reasons. (...) Preventing racism and requiring it are (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I pointed out the real difference between your two examples - you consistently refuse to address it. (...) The scenario in regards to Jim Crow is the state government gave you an excuse to allow the segregated busing you wanted (you not being (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: <snip> I think you raise some good points but I'm not sure how to proceed since we seem a ways a part. As with Shiri's post about working conditions, I am not going to claim that things are not (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

(...) But I am sure that there would be many who would be willing to pay a premium to send their kids to a "whites only" school or use other whites only services. With your text above, we return to the LP's dilemma. The LP is made up of a membership (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Please provide a cite where I said this. I don't claim EVERY problem can be solved better, (For example the problem of your obdurateness is no doubt insoluble under any system) just that the aggregate of all problems would be solved better, on (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

(...) Yet again, you have snipped my points rather than respond to them. (...) It is my perception. I may set aside time to find a quote later. (...) Youch, another insult! (...) Is this a mantra thing?? (...) Perhaps you should read this (again): (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Yes, the racism was at least party government sponsored. But I think it is a mistake to blame some government bogeyman rather than admitting that it was a reflection of the electorate. And yes, there was pressure put on businesses and (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Dave Schuler

(...) But it's not simply of matter of whether or not a restaurant will choose to serve "coloreds:" Businesses will be able to choose whether or not to hire people on basis of any bigoted notion they can think of. Further, because it can be quite (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Frank Filz

(...) This is ploughed ground, but I'll revisit it. First, I think there would be a good amount of support for schools for the underpriviledged. In fact, in a free market, companies ought to want to support schools for all. Why? The more educated (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Dave Schuler

(...) That's not a bad assessment, but I think it applies more at the national level than at the level of any sub-national business or industry. Ploughed ground, to be sure, but to date the Libertopian argument hasn't been convincingly put forth. (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) The world is changing, regardless, though. Rather arrogant of them, eh, not to care what conclusions we come to here? Peace and freedom, in general, are winning. ++Lar (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Dave Schuler

(...) "Them" who? The world at large? I'm not sure what you're referring to. Dave! (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda (was incorrectly referred to as SPAM) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes. The world at large not taking LUGNETters opinions into account! The very idea. :-) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda (was incorrectly referred to as SPAM) —Dave Schuler

(...) Hey, you're making fun of my pseudo-seriousness! Now *I'm* disenfranchised! Dave! (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Tom Stangl

But companies would want well-educated employees no matter WHERE they came from, and would most likely contribute on both the local AND national level. For a simple, real world example, look at Silicon Valley as a whole - finding qualified (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Shiri Dori

<snip> (...) Nitpicking here - that's not true. The public school system and the requirement to attend it were formed in the late 19th century. The general public wanted kids out of the cheap working force, because they were depressing wages for (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Fascinating! Do you have a cite for that? Should be interesting reading. ++Lar (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Dave Schuler

(...) This isn't a cite, but I'd heard the same thing and was reluctant to voice it, since I couldn't document it. And what did I say about fascinating?! Dave! (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Matthew Gerber

(...) Here's info for England: (URL) Education Act for England (one for Scotland followed soon after) established a national system of primary schools for children up to age 12; in 1880 attendance at primary school was made mandatory." I can't find (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Matthew Gerber

(...) Cool, found it! It's good to be the king! From: (URL) England and America, the evidence shows that majority literacy was achieved under the largely market-based systems of the early 19th century, and that the spread of completely tax-funded (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Matthew Gerber REGALLY PROCLAIMS: (...) YOU ARE the king of Cites. What a great cite. It seems to be saying that mandatory schooling didn't work. That seems to be somewhat anti-dogmatic (if you accept NEA dogma anyway). (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Dave Schuler

(...) I don't refute the King's cite, but I'd be interested to know precisely what "evidence shows that majority literacy was achieved under the largely market-based systems of the early 19th century," and what the "majority" represented. If it was (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well, I am not a big fan of them either, but I was referring to the National Education Association, my apologies, I figured it would be clear from context... So don't burn the wrong wrongheaded group by mistake! (or is that miss-stake?) (...) (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Dave Schuler

(...) White as snow, despite my efforts to gain a tan (curse my Irish/German/ Ukrainian blood!) but I'm only barely middle class--could I still get in? Dave! (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Suntan —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Limit that to Ukrainian. I can get a tan. Irish/German/Dutch. Of course, this is all relative, since my wife and son can sit out in the sun all day and never burn. Bruce (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Suntan —Dave Schuler

(...) I burn fairly readily, but that's not what annoys me. What annoys me is that, after burning to Crayola red one day, the next day I'm back to killer-whale-belly-white, with no transition hue. Always been that way. Dave! (23 years ago, 16-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Tom Stangl

Define Middle Class ;-) MC varies widely depending on the COL in your area. In the vast majority of the US, I'd be considered MC from my salary. Here in Sillycon Valley, I'm far from it - I couldn't even begin to afford a house in any way. (...) -- (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Matthew Gerber

(...) Well, I can't do everything for you, but you might want to check out the book review that the cite points to: (URL) the book that review is about: "Market Education: The Unknown History", Coulson, Andrew J. (1999) ...and possibly the books (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Matthew Gerber

(...) Ummmm? Not sure where to go here. Let's do this: (URL) can't copy the text out of the PDF file and put it here, so you'll have to go read it yourselves. Here's the gist: In 1813, Connecticut passed law to get businesses to educate their child (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Frank Filz

(...) I think you're numbers on layoffs are a bit off... 10s of thousands of workers daily is quite a few. In Libertopia, there would certainly be no regulation of schools. Of course schools would vary all over the map as to how good an education (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Matthew Gerber

(...) Sorry, should have said "announcing the laying off of tens of thousands of workers daily"...and I don't mean in total! Look at this from today's TechTV news: (URL) said it will take a $830 million restructuring charge, which is associated with (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Shiri Dori

(...) Uh, what *did* you say about fascinating? -Shiri (23 years ago, 16-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Maggie Cambron

(...) Here: (URL) C. (23 years ago, 16-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

A piece of U.S. history (was: Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)) —Shiri Dori

Whew! What a long post. I've been typing for almost an hour. So careful, great ramble ahead, and the footnotes are almost as long as the post itself. ;-) (...) Matt already found some stuff for you and all, I just wanted to say that I didn't really (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A piece of U.S. history (was: Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)) —Matthew Gerber

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Shiri Dori writes: <One of the best posts I've ever seen, especially in .debate...read it, seriously!> Shiri, 1) I want to give you a high-five, but can't figure out how to do it through the computer. 2) Give me the name (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A piece of U.S. history (was: Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)) —Shiri Dori

<grinning and blushing at the same time> (...) Yeah, that's a tough one. ;-) (...) Hehe. It's Newton North High-School (NNHS), a public school. Your only problem would be the rent/house price in the town, probably. Sky-rocketing. Scary. -Shiri (23 years ago, 16-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) This is one of my problems with the Libertarian Party. All that sounded good on paper. I like it...in theory. Unfortunately, it's doubtful that it will happen in reality. Businesses are all too often focused on the *now*, the next quarter, (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Frank Filz

(...) A random thought just jumped into my head... Where would the civil rights movement be had the segregationist states NOT used the National Guard to attempt to quell the demonstations? Recently (actually on my way to the April Baylug meeting), I (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

(...) So where would that outlook stand on this story: (URL) (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

** bump ** (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

You ought to wait 2-3 days, at least, before bumping... (...) discriminate at all. Not enough facts in the story to judge what is going on in this particular case. Not an important enough case, really, to justify my trying to research it further to (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

(...) At least one person was found guilty. Fact enough. Is your line not that the proprietor should be free allow skin colour to decide the level of service s/he provides? That s/he should be allowed to humiliate a fellow citizen purely because of (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Dave Schuler

(...) I accept that you don't think it's important, and I accept also your assertion that you would be willing to have society "start from scratch" (ie: with everyone truly equal) if it meant that Libertopia could be realized. (URL) In that way, you (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: <concern for long term viability under demographic skewing> Fair enough. However the long term viability of the LP as a party isn't that important to me, per se. While I am quite ready to throw (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Shiri Dori

<snipping> (BTW, before I start, SCLC was the movement originally led by Martin Luther King, Jr. - the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.) (...) Notice that this answer is waaaaay over-simplified. Please don't attack me on demographics, etc. (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Dave Schuler

(...) Shiri, you're a woman--you have no place in a discussion of white male rule. Take off your shoes and return to the kitchen, please. (the preceding draconian chauvinism was brought to us on the basis that Shiri has repeatedly demonstrated her (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Shiri Dori

(...) Dave, you just made my day. ;-) Gotta run! -Shiri (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Thanks - I just never connect the initials to the group. :-) (...) It's a pretty good analogy that isn't quite right. Libertarians tend to be white, male, and middle-to-upper-middle class. That isn't rich. Shouldn't the rich be Libertarians if (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Shiri Dori

(...) No problem. I wouldn't know myself, if I hadn't just ended a year with an excellent U.S History class. :-) My teachers, both this year and last, were really amazing and I doubt I will forget what I learned any time soon. (...) Hmmm. Very good (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) True dat... but we are trying very hard to establish that not everyone currently unhappy with the U.S. government is necessarily libertarian and you ain't helping. :-) ++Lar (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Dave Schuler

(...) More important--I'd like to know where she had an excellent US History class. Not in the US, I'd wager. 8^( Dave! (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Unless it was a private school, no bet. <GD&R> ++Lar (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Dave Schuler

(...) If that were the sum of the problem, then we chould just have Iron Man fix it for us. And where's HYDRA in all of this? Dave! FUT OT.FUN (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarians & Comic Books —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Nick Fury, Agent of Shield, would seem to be the better bet. I was wondering if anyone would catch the reference. :-) Bruce (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Now: Women Was: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Katie Dokken

(...) Us "women" do understand the message. You think I have time to be active in the Libertarian party? I'm too danged busy fighting all the other stereotypes out there, such as, I'm supposed to be the size of Kate Moss and all the other starving (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Now: Women Was: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) This is a good example of poor snipping. Let me restore the salient portion to the above (before my name, immediately follwing the rest): "A fear by them that they *think* they *do* understand the Libertarian message (it's legit for businesses (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Now: Women Was: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

(...) I think there are many pressures on men too. Modern man does not just go out and to a bit of huntin' and gatherin' - he also has to do all other sorts of other stuff. Both men & women are hounded by media images of what we should (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Now: Women Was: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Katie Dokken

(...) Easy to ignore them, not so easy to deal with all the other people in the world/society around you that do not ignore them. And in fact buy into it. (...) Count? As in 2 plus 2 is 5? <grin> (...) As some one who lives within spitting distance (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Now: Women Was: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Mark Sandlin

<Important message: Please bear in mind that my questions are meant to be rhetorical, and not attacking. I am a white male, but I am not about keeping the woman down. Thank You.> (...) You are? Says who? Who will refuse to speak to you if you're (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Now: Women Was: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Katie Dokken

(...) The media says I should be. And I think the explosion of eating disorders among teen age girls says that they are getting the message. I personally ignore all advertising. I'm a marketers nightmare. I don't believe or pay attention to any ads (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Now: Women Was: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Tom Stangl

(...) Katie, Sounds to me like you just have bad luck on finding men ;-) Men AND women should realize that they are NOT going to change their spouse in any major way. And there are men out there that like to cook, you just need to look harder - or (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Now: Women Was: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Idunno, faced with the prospect of eating my wife's cooking or learning to cook myself, I chose the latter. Don't complain about the moose-turd pie unless you are willing to become the cook. :-) Bruce (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Self-made diet —Dave Schuler

(...) Mmmm.... Culinary auto-cannibalism! Dave! (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Self-made diet —Matthew Gerber

(...) I'd think that the stuffing would be the most difficult part! Matt (In a white wine sauce, and truffles) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Self-made diet —Dave Schuler

(...) This, coming from the guy with the tough-guy mob name! Dave! (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Self-made diet —Matthew Gerber

(...) HEY! *Those* parts are considered a DELICACY! LOL! Matt (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Self-made diet —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Famous explorer Ferdinand Feghoot and his son landed on one of the Hawaiian islands in the pacific. The natives threw a feast in his honor. It was beautiful under the setting tropical sun, the gentle surf, the dancing girls. Picking through (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Self-made diet —Matthew Gerber

(...) Ummm...and just HOW did he know that? 8?) Matt (Seared a golden brown and smothered in grilled onions and mushrooms) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Self-made diet —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Experience. He was a politician - they enjoy devouring their opponents. Bruce (marinated in sweet-and-sour sauce and flame broiled) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Self-made diet —James Brown

(...) Ya know, that's exactly the first thing I wondered. I mean, if he didn't *know* what human meat tasted like, wouldn't he have said "Hmm. Tastes like chicken."? ;) James (pressure-cooked until tender, and soaked in a sweet & sour pineapple (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Self-made diet —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Because we don't taste like chicken. Human flesh is refered to as "long-pig". Enjoy your pork. :-) Bruce (the other OTHER white meat, Mesquite slow-smoked) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Self-made diet —Maggie Cambron

Well, THIS thread will drive me to vegetarianism if nothing else will Maggie C. (who will not, however, give up her collection of leather goods) (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Self-made diet —Matthew Gerber

(...) Sorry Maggie! Just a rich little thread, seasoned generously with ideas from the comedy stylings of Monty Python and lightly toasted in the glow of The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy, then poached to sublime perfection. Served with your (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Self-made diet —James Brown

(...) Which of course begs the question.... ;) (...) There was a billboard campaign in Saskatchewan for a while that got lots of laughs from people who read any of several other meanings into it. It showed a generic "ad-guy" with his generic (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Self-made diet —Matthew Gerber

(...) Ewwwwww........ (...) pork...but not in that way...aw, forget it!) BTW, this whole thread is now lent a *tiny* bit of realism, if you notice the following things: 1) Yes, the word pork takes on many different meanings when seen on the (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Self-made diet —Nathan McDowell

(...) Yikes! There isn't anything subtle about that billboard is there? Hehe. =) ~Nathan (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Self-made diet —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Haha! That's a great one - but I think they knew *exactly* what they were saying. Bruce (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Self-made diet —James Brown

(...) In terms of one common context, yes. In the context of this thread? ;) Or in other words, were there two people, or three in that billboard? James (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Self-made diet —Adrian Drake

(...) Anyone know where I can invest in a super-dooper king sized version of the George Foreman Grill? Adrian (marinated in one of Mr. Yoshida's Unique and Exciting sauces, served with a side of steamed bok choi those cute little baby carrot cobs) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Self-made diet —Kyle D. Jackson

(...) Carrots have cobs?? ;] KDJ (banana-nut loaf) ___...___ LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Now: Women Was: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Duane Hess

(...) It took my wife nearly four years, but she finally got me to pick my socks up off of the living room floor. Of course it might have been the fact that she taped them to a ceiling light fixture just as company was arriving.... :-) Anyway... My (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Now: Women Was: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Katie Dokken

(...) Great idea! You wouldn't have lasted four years here though. My dogs would have just eaten all your socks in that time. You wouldn't have to worry about learning to wash them though, you'd just be buying new ones all the time :-) (...) (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Now: Women Was: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Frank Filz

(...) I learned other ways from my mom that work a little better than those rubber thingies (we had those also). On a brand new jar, a well placed spoon does wonders to release the pressure. On an absolutely stuck jar, my mom had this adjustable (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Now: women and tools! —Katie Dokken

(...) Ah, women and tools. My favorite subject. I have several of the adjustable wrenches. Though I always use a screwdriver to pop open paint can lids, but it probably depends on what kind of paint can you're opening. I'm contemplating a new drill (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Now: women and tools! —Duane Hess

(...) Go for the cobalt bits. (I think they're cobalt - can't remember) They are the ones with the gold color to them (or maybe that's the true color of money). I have a whole set and they work well on most everything, wood, metal, whatever. The (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Now: women and tools! —Tom Stangl

Cobalt are a dark coppery brown. Titanium are gold. HSS are generally "natural", chrome, or black. If you drill all types of materials, it would be best to own HSS, Cobalt, Titanium, and a few carbide and diamond coated (still need to buy the (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Now: women and tools! —Jason J. Railton

(...) Me too. So where do you obtain these adjustable wenches? :-) Jason J Railton (23 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Now: Women Was: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —James Brown

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes: <snip...> (...) My wife says that opening jars is the only other reason women keep men around. ;) James (who probably does less than his "fair share" of the workload, but his wife keeps claiming she's (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Now: Women Was: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Katie Dokken

(...) any (...) Amen! (...) or (...) Can't eat out. I live in the country, the nearest "town" is 11 miles away and only has *2* so called restaurants. Interesting thread though....... I eat soup out of a can and my dogs eat chicken, and fresh (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (was Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)) —Scott Arthur

(...) These ones: From (URL) Libertarian National Socialist Green Party is in part based upon the work of the Libertarian party from whom we gain appreciation for the individual spirit and independence from a morally-judgmental, active government. (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (was Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) If these guys are Libertarians, then Tony Blair ought to be running for the chair of the Tories. Putting a word in your name doesn't make you that word. (...) If these guys are Greens, then Robert Byrd ought to be stumping for the presidential (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (was Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)) —Scott Arthur

(...) lol. If you understood UK politics you would know you have just shot yourself in the foot. (...) You are not reading the text I quoted. Think a little deeper Larry. From their platform: (URL) autonomy to the citizen Revert to authority of (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (was Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)) —Tom Stangl

And how does this in ANY way make the Libertarian Party like the LNSGP? Taking a splinter group (hell, I wouldn't even call this a splinter group of the LP) and making the assumption that the main party is like the splinter group is so colossally (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Idaho...?! I've been to Idaho, these folks don't offer much threat. Are you sure you didn't mean Michigan? Besides, most of the white supremacists I've come across tend to be John Bircher folks... Just helping you fan the flames... Cheers, - (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

(...) I may well. My US geogrphy is poor. (...) OK, who is john bircher? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Which compounds are these? I'm not familiar with any such "libertarian" compounds. ++Lar (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur

(...) Do these poeple not all tend to group together in readiness for the day the FBI comes to get them and take away their rights? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Jeff Stembel

(...) It really annoys me when people clamor for a "smaller government." The first things to get cut are usually civil services, government publications, and the like. As an example, many years ago, the Coast Pilot division had some 25 or more (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Marc Nelson, Jr.

(...) As a card-carrying Libertarian, the foreign policy plank is probably the part of the platform I disagree with the most. Regardless of what domestic policies we persue (libertarian ones, I hope), our national interest doesn't change. Now, I (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Daniel Jassim

(...) And what is our national interest, besides economic imperialism? (...) What are our national interests, besides economic imperialism? (...) Perhaps I misunderstand you, but are you saying that only Americans have rights, such as those of (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Economic imperialism, whatever that might be, surely doesn't fall within *this* libertarian's definition of what an appropriate national interest ought to be. Can you define what you mean a bit more? What I think Mark is getting at is that the (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Dave Schuler

(...) But there's a reason that the past is in the past. The world as Jefferson (whose idea of property, by the way, included certain individuals who were not duly compensated for their labor in his service) perceived it is largely irrelevant to the (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Somewhat, yes. Largely? Not sure. Certainly the ability to rain defeat on your enemy 12000 miles away in a matter of a few hours is a major difference, though. (...) I don't give deific status to anyone or anything (other than, perhaps, (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Dave Schuler

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes (...) As is the ability to keep tabs with one's home nation in microseconds rather than months. The reason I mention this, and the reason I basically reject the "entangled alliances" caution, is (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Larry Pieniazek

(...) <snip> (...) Well, yes and no. While it may be easier to project power now than then, it was already easier in 1914, and I would argue that entangling alliances made WW I flare up worse and faster than if it had been just Austro Hungary (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) The meaning of alliance in 1914 was already different than that in the 1780s. The point in 1914 that caused the war was very simply and plainly--as several recent studies and unearthed documents have confirmed--that the German leadership (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Larry Pieniazek

(...) It's the COBOL equivalent (minus the nuances about pre/post incrementation) to ++Lar (increment Lar by 1 in C++) Try this then... 10 SET L = L + 1 (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Ross Crawford

(...) I thought the BASIC syntax was 10 LET L = L + 1 ???? ROSCO (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Who said it was BASIC? :-) ++Lar (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Jason J. Railton

(...) Yeah, it could be: LAR @ 1 + ? Jason J Railton (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Jason J. Railton

(...) Argh! Can't even get that right. LAR @ 1 + . Jason J Railton (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Marc Nelson, Jr.

(...) Heh. That reminds me of my favorite footnote... In the introduction to Struggle for Mastery in Europe, AJP Taylor says something about European diplomats of the time being generally honest. Then in the footnote, he says something like, "It is (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Daniel Jassim

(...) In the good old days it was colonialism and empire building--theft and occupation of other lands and exploitation of the native people and resources. We can't do that anymore today, everybody is watching everybody, so we build an economic (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I give up. Why? I've never been in favor of it. Or government aid to anyone else except in certain very special situations. ++Lar (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Dave Schuler

(...) Dan: Permit me to take a guess, both for clarity's sake and also to make sure that I understand what he's saying. He's referring not to the "inalienable" rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but rather the (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Marc Nelson, Jr.

(...) policies (...) and (...) Well, exactly what our national interests are is certainly a matter for debate. I was just saying that whatever we decide they are, it is fine to use force to protect them. But if by economic imperialism, you mean free (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Dave Schuler

(...) I hadn't realized that Libertarians endorsed state-sponsored killing of anyone, which would be the most likely source of this kind of assassination attempt (other than attempts internal to that nation.) In addition, Harry Browne is neither a (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Marc Nelson, Jr.

(...) Yeah, I was hoping Gorman would get the nomination myself. Assasination is probably not something most Libertarians would agree with, and I'm sure it's not in the platform. I think his idea was to put bounties on people, like, $1 million for (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Daniel Jassim

(...) I mean dominating other nations through unethical trading practicing or harsh sanctions or expoitating human labor and natural resources of other nations. There's no morality in using force to "defend" our greedy business ventures and economic (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Marc Nelson, Jr.

(...) debate. (...) to (...) place (...) foreign (...) to (...) So if trade is bad, then shouldn't the Iraqis be grateful that they are sanctioned? Now they don't have to worry about American economic imperialists exploiting their labor and natural (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) Maybe I should explain the sanctions against Iraq better. It's not about trade with America, it's not about business with America, it's about starving and killing innocent men, women and children and destroying the infrastructure of Iraq. The (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Marc Nelson, Jr.

(...) So if a business, American or otherwise, trades with Iraq, selling food, tools, whatever, and they make lots of money -- is that bad or good? Are they economic imperialists? Are they exploiting the Iraqis? What about buying oil from Iraq? Does (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) That's an entirely different subject. My point is to allow Iraq to function as country by lifting the sanctions that have destroyed the nations infrastructure and demoralized and destroyed the lives of so many innocent people. (...) There's an (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Santosh Bhat

(...) The sad thing is that Economic sanctions barely harm those that make the nations decisions. Any person in goverment or in a powerful position will still get their fine food, medical facilities and luxury goods. Thats a fact about such corrupt (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) How do you determine the fair price? That's a serious question, you speak of fair trade (which tends to be a code word here in the US for unfree trade), but how do you know what is fair? Who (or what mechanism) determines it? (...) What are (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) Once again, here's another one of your little challenges, Larry. You don't say whether you agree or not, you just throw out some more bullsh*t questions to fish for another fight. If you DON'T AGREE that there are ethics in business and (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I think you have some issues here you need to deal with. Everything is challenges, fighting, giving inches, not being wrong. No inclusivness, no common ground, no exploration of issues. Your idea of agreeing is that everyone you talk to agree (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) Pardon me, but are you describing me or YOU here?! I think you're a bit confused, you just described several aspects of your on-line self in that paragraph. Get a grip on reality, my friend, and realize that you mostly stir up trouble here and (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'll let your own words and posts speak for themselves and let it go at that. I'm satisfied with my characterisation. (...) Suppose they didn't do that though? Take FAO for an example... they sell well above prevailing retail and don't price (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) Denial is a powerful thing. As I said, we agree on much more than we disagree, why focus on the points of disagreement. <snipped discussion on Toys R' Us> You asked for my opinion on fair pricing, I gave it. I'm satisfied with my opinion or (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) It's not that the example doesn't suit me, it's just that it's incomplete. I gave an example similar to your scenario of pricing above the prevalent retail and asked if it was fair or not under your definition. I think you need to give another (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) Yes, I would agree because "willing" is the operative here. But I'm talking about "having to" situations, where prices are dictated by a dominating power rather than made by mutual, good faith agreements. I'm talking about dirty trade (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Tom Stangl

(...) Where do you get this ridiculous notion from? Are you SERIOUSLY going to tell me you think we'll never get off this planet in the next billion years? I suppose you believe we haven't really been to the moon already? (...) That isn't going to (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) Ridiculous? What gives with the insults, Tom? Have I done something wrong to you? Mind your tone and read it again. "Everything that has ever happened or will ever happen with mankind" as in everything we do begins here on this planet. This is (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) On the attack again, Daniel? Calling something a ridiculous notion is hardly an insult, it's just a characterization of the notion itself. The very idea that someone might find fault with something you say gets to you, doesn't it? Here I (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) I haven't attacked anyone, Larry. Telling someone to "mind their tone" is hardly an attack. And I didn't call Tom's notions or opinion ridiculous or any other thing. If you want to play games and jump and nitpick what I say, twist it to mean (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Sorry for butting in, then, because I can see that you and he are doing *so well* at dealing with the actual assertions and issues... I don't know what I was thinking suggesting that you might be wrong about something or that you might be (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) Personally, NO, because the earth has a history of mass extinctions that take place every so many million years apart. So, within a billion years there can be any number of mass extinction events followed by the rise of "new" organisms to (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Tom Stangl

(...) No, the only thing that inflated this was your blatant lack of clarity. You seem to put VOLUMES of extra background into: "Everything that has ever happened or will ever happen with mankind has taken place on this tiny, blue world. Since we (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

There were many ways you could have approached my statement that reflected a desire for more clarity, yet you chose to be rude and obnoxious. You chose hostility over diplomacy. That's your game and I'm not impressed. You are the one with the (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) My point is that while that is true NOW we would be foolish to let it be so for a billion, a million, or even a thousand years longer. Manifest destiny! Ad Astra Per Aspera. Our destiny is not to remain here, every single one of us, for the (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) Yup! Small steps leading to bigger, and bigger steps. Think of how far we've come just in one century! At the same time, as Carl Sagan said, we are still in our stage of "global infancy" and need to get past the petty, destructive differences (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Shiri Dori

(...) Selçuk both gave the quote, and couldn't remember who said it. Either way though, I still like the quote in its out-of-Stalin context. ("The death of one is a tregedy, the death of millions is a stastic.) The way Stalin used it, it's (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) That was the quote! Thanks Shiri! Dan (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Tom Stangl

(...) I think you need to read your own wording. "Since we all must share this one small world for the next billion years" Those are YOUR words. Do you seriously believe this? Can you be so pessimistic about our progress as to think we'll still be (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) You're taking this further and further away from the reality of what I wrote and choosing a negative interpretation. If you can't see that, that's your problem, not mine. You could have picked so many ways to address my comment, but you chose (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Tom Stangl

(...) Don't think so? Think again. And is that supposed to be some kind of threat? Now who needs a lesson in diplomacy? (...) Bite me. Some people lose the right to be treated mannerly, and I think you have, IMO. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

Whatever. If you're saying you behave this crude in person, why don't you come down here to LA and show me? Otherwise, keep the bullsh*t to yourself and stop hiding behind your computer. Learn some manners. Dan (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Matthew Gerber

(...) Boy Larry, I am SO glad you started the 'Libertarian Propaganda' thread. (s) This is just do damn enlightening. Matt [Remember, the (s) stands for sarcasm, in case anyone misses it] (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Yeah, Larry! It's your fault that Tom is rude and that Daniel wants to fight him over it. Shame on you. Actually, I have found it wildly instructive to force myself to appreciate someone who is being rude to me. In certain usenet forums that I (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well I AM a troublemaker with a warped view of reality, trying to get some sort of club going, you know. What can I say, I love it when a plan comes together. (s) Seriously I ought to try to take your advice (that I snipped), but it's hard, I (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Matthew Gerber

(...) Why do I see Larry, and a bunch of other Libertarians, walking around in a pack, wearing leather and satin jackets, snapping their fingers and executing high dance kicks? 8?) (...) Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha...*ga.....s..sorry Larry...*guffaw*... Matt (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Matthew Gerber

(...) Now, see? If you were truly using the criteria as you stated before*, I would have expected a smiley emoticon, or at least an (s), to help a reader understand the state of mind the statement had been given in. Did you really intend that as a (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) The (s) thing is new to me. Emoticons are OK sometimes, I use them when I think there's a doubt about my intent. (...) I thought I was going along with you. And I thought it was clear...sometimes I miss. Sorry. Chris (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) <snipped some stuff> (...) Hey, I don't want to fight Tom or anybody, Chris. If Tom feels he can constantly take a nasty tone with me on-line, that's his choice. It doesn't impress me. If he says he's this way in person, he's welcome to come (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Well, it kind of sounded (in two different notes) like you were inviting him to "step outside" about it. I'm not used to that kind of attitude. I am occasionally so put off by a note that I feel an urge toward violence. That is an immaturity (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) I see what you mean. Physical solutions are not my thing. I was hoping that my statement would be a reality check of sorts. Either way, his crude behavior toward me will remain on-line as far as I'm concerned. (...) Yes, I always welcome Tom's (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Tom Stangl

(...) I was going to post some other drivel (about on the level of the above - actually, I did post, but I Cancelled it), but I'll just drop it with... <insert picture of gorilla beating chest here> <yawn> And I really will drop it. If Dan wants to (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

Whatever. I'm not impressed. Learn some manners and treat people with a little dignity. You choose to be rude and insulting on-line, that's your choice. You choose to pigeon hole people in this forum, that's your choice. See where it gets you in (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Tom Stangl

Insults, insults, insults. Everything is insults with you. If you're not crying about getting them, you're dishing them out. (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

I'm giving you an honest appraisal of what I perceive to be your problem of treating me rudely on-line. I haven't called your comments ridiculous or idiotic, nor have I previously approached you with sarcasm or cynicism. Nothing you can say will (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Tom Stangl

I'd much rather be rude than a threatening bully (used to be one when a child, when not being bullied, and choose not to be that kind of person again). You have been far more rude than me in this. That's it, I'm done commenting on your threats and (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

I've made no threats to seek you out and do you any harm. If you wish to continue your hostility just know that you can ONLY do it on-line with me. Remember, that's your limit and that's the way it is. YOU suggested otherwise so if YOU would like to (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Look Dan, (is Dan right?) You're still inviting him to step outside. You aren't staying in the bar to smash a bottle over his head, but you ARE inviting some kind of further agression. Why? What if he did come down to LA, ring your doorbell, (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) <snipped my comments> (...) HE is the one who initially chose to be aggressive, not me. I never offered any deliberate provocation and never insulted his views, opinions or statements. When I told him to mind his tone (and this is not the (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Tom Stangl

(...) My last word on this - you are the only one showing hostility. I may be rude (In your mind), but if you equate rudeness to hostility, you have issues you need to work out with a therapist. That's it, I'm done with you. You can say all you want (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

It is your choice to put things on the petty level of "winning" or "losing." In my opinion, I find that attitude quite cowardly and childish and only contributes to the impression that you take little responsibility in your actions. Since rudeness (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I think you meant "darn" enlightening, bub. :-) Well I am not sorry for starting the thread, but I am sorry that it seems to be demonstrating what has been said about some people in the past as being valid. Some people more than others, but it (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Matthew Gerber

(...) Oops...sorry to all the kiddies out there! X-P (All joking aside, I figure if I can hear words on the Simpsons at 6:00 in the evening, I can type them here...then we can ALL live like kings...DAMN, HELL, ASS KINGS!) (...) Yepp-ers...'tis true. (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

(canceled) —Tom Stangl

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Christopher Tracey

(...) Can you provide cites on this? (...) How successful are you at this Daniel? I try to as much as I can. I'm curious about your attempts. Reply offline if you would like. (...) I seriously thought about this when I learned LEGO was shutting down (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) Well, whenever I'm considering buying anything I always look at where the product was made. Generally, I look for the product made in the U.S.A., Japan or in Western European countries because, as far as I know, their labor laws coincide with (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Marc Nelson, Jr.

(...) I just read an interesting piece in The New Republic about the sanctions on Iraq: (URL) that the Iraqi govt. IS able to get food from other nations, but it exports it to pay for luxuries for the party elite. It supports the case that sanctions (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) Seems so, according to that one report and I don't doubt for a minute that Saddam wouldn't take the money from the so-called "oil-for-food" program to build palaces and let Iraqis suffer. Even if this report were 100% true, it doesn't change (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Tom Stangl

Yeah, let's do it RIGHT - drop the sanctions, and assassinate the bastard. That's the simplest fix ;-) (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Might theoretically be simplest but I doubt it. Better: Drop the sanctions, drop restrictions on private individuals giving aid, and let his own people do it. What Bush I did to the Iraqi opposition, leading them on, then leaving them out to (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) A good point with a debatable example. (...) Another good point, but it misses to a degree. People turn to violence when they feel disenfranchised for whatever reason - the Latasha Harlin/Rodney King one-two punch resulted in riots in Los (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)