Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:35:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
727 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Matthew Gerber writes:
> 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.
What do you gain by being smug in your insults? Why not either discuss the
topic, or not?
> Then, don't pretend to know my mind.
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 I need to put an (s) after each
> statement meant to be sarcastic?
Maybe you could leave them out.
> Hmmm...then who is wrong, or is anyone? You seem to think that your opinion
> is the more valid, and that thought fits the actual definition of 'opinion':
I do (of course) think my opinion is correct. If I did not think so, I would
have a different opinion. Right? You think that your opinion is correct too.
It is impossible to do otherwise.
> 1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by
> positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by
> imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).
>
> Unless you are claiming to be an expert, but you don't sound like one here:
Well, I supose it depends on how you measure expertise. I certainly followed
the events much more closely than did most people to whom I was exposed. I was
in constant conversation and correspondance about it and I wrote analyses and
arguements. Still and all, I would hesitate to call myself an expert.
Overall I find your appeal to the dictionary as a tool for insult childish.
Are you interested in contrasting my stance to your own, or merely in attacking
me? How exactly would I even go about "proving" my side of this argument? If
you can't think of a method to do so, then you have no place asking for proof.
In which case, an opinion is perfectly valid.
> And if the majority of the people you talked to had an opinion different
> than yours:
That doesn't make it right. From your assertion about court-ordered "truth"
and now this appeal to popular "truth" it seems to me that you and I have a
very different stance on what truth even means.
> > > The fact that you seem to be glossing over here is the fact that authorized
> > > members of our government were doing their required job by trying to serve a
> > > warrant at the Waco compound:
> >
> > I'm not glossing over that at all. We hadn't discussed any specifics. But • we
> > can now.
> >
> > Why was a team of 76 soldiers needed to serve a search warrant?
>
> Ummm...
> "They assembled large supplies of arms; one source estimated 11 tons of arms
> including antitank rifles."
> "4 live grenades, 6 grenade launchers and 48 automatic weapons were
> recovered after the fire, in addition to 151 legal weapons. Countless rounds
> of bullets and a number of hand grenades exploded during the fire. When the
> "bunker" was excavated, about 750,000 bullet casings were found."
> "They looked upon Koresh as a deranged individual. He believed himself to be
> Jesus Christ. They knew that he had a huge arsenal of illegal weapons."
>
> And, the only soldiers present were three passive observers. These were
> government agents.
Sorry, by soldier I meant guys in combat fatigues with automatic rifles engaged
in a military-style operation. I should have been more clear. Who 'estimated'
those 11 tons? Why does any of that matter? I wouldn't call that a huge
arsenal. And the number of weapons found divided by the inhabitants fell
substantially short of the average gun ownership stat for the state of Texas at
the time.
> > The Sheriff
> > had served warrant at the front
> > door of the Mt. Carmel dwelling a few times and had taken Koresh into custody
> > without threat or fear of
> > violence and without experiencing any difficulty.
>
> Lucky guy. Brave (or stupid) too.
I don't think so. He just did his job properly. Unlike the BATF. Koresh
wasn't violent. He just wasn't. The local law enforcement community agrees
with me.
> He could have had 750,000 rounds of ammo
> pumped into him. I wouldn't have gone there (except under orders, if I were
> an ATF or FBI agent...it's part of the job, you know).
I have collection of fire arms too. Does that mean it is stupid for a deputy
to knock on my door? If they need to tell me to cut my grass, should they
engage in a military operation against me in order to carry out the law? I
don't think so. If a cop knocked at my door, I'd just answer it and hear what
he had to say. So would have the Branch Davidians.
> > Why wasn't he consulted by
> > the BATF prior to their
> > egregiously violent raid?
>
> They wouldn't have acted in his jurisdiction without speaking with him
> first. Do you really dilute your thinking with enough party propaganda to
> stiffle the truth? I sure hope not.
What party are you talking about. I don't belong to any political party, and I
never have. I can only report what the sheriff stated to reporters and then
was published in newspapers that reached my location in Illinois and Missouri.
The Sheriff said that he would have had no problem taking Koresh into
custody -- that he had done it before, and that the BATF _did not_ consult him
on the operation prior to engagement.
> > Why did their little warrant-serving army approach
> > with automatic weapons under the
> > cover of night instead of just driving up during the day?
>
> See above ("Ummm...", although you seem to dislike doing this, I am not
> going to keep quoting the same things over and over...I challenge you to
> take the time to re-read the above and find the relevance)
So you continue to assert that such a raid was actually a good idea on their
part? When all the evidence suggests that they were woefully ignorant of what
they were getting into? Hell, if they had actually been prepared -- with
knowledge of the Branch Davidians and stuff, they simply wouldn't have attacked
that way. The outcome that history has recorded was almost inescapable given
that approach.
> > While I basically agree that they were the only ones with no choice in the
> > matter, I'm not sure why the needless
> > loss of adult life doesn't constitute a tragedy in your mind.
>
> "Koresh and about 75 of his followers [numbers differ in various sources]
> died of stab wounds, gun shots, and from the effects of smoke and flames.
> This included 21 children."
>
> I find it hard to believe that the government agents were throwing knives
> into the compound...
I never suggested that some of them didn't committ suicide. You don't consider
someone being thrust into a situation where they feel like suicide is the only
way out is tragic?
> I suppose government agents flew their black stealth helicopters over the
> compound, unseen and unheard, and guys with lit torches repelled into the
> compound at several different places to touch off those fires?
Why are you even responding? For that matter, why are you even here?
> "In the resultant firefight, 6 Davidians and 4 ATF agents died; at least one
> Davidian and 24 agents were wounded."
>
> Those Branch Davidians were awfully good shots, weren't they? Oh yeah,
> 750,000 spent shells found. Right.
I don't follow. They fought back, but so what? Who wouldn't?
> Once more for those slow on the uptake: THE BRANCH DAVIDIANS WERE STOCKING
> UP ON ILLEGAL AND LEGAL WEAPONS. THEY WERE PREPARRING FOR THE BATTLE THEIR
> SPIRITUAL LEADER TOLD THEM WAS COMING. THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING, AND
> KNEW IT WAS AGINST THE LAWS OF THE LAND THEY RESIDED IN. THEY WERE GOING TO
> KILL SOMEONE, SOMETIME, AND THE GOVERNMENT AGENTS TOOK THE HIT, PROTECTING
> THE GENERAL POPULACE FROM THE BRANCH DAVIDIANS, BEFORE THEY COULD DO HARM TO
> THE GENERAL PUBLIC. THAT IS WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS THERE FOR, AND THE AGENTS
> WHO WERE WOUNDED OR KILLED ARE HEROES FOR PROTECTING THE RIGHTS AND LIVES OF
> THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.
Do you know where they were burried? I need to take a leak.
> > Further, I reject that there were any illegal weapons because laws in the
> > nation are always secondary to the
> > ultimate law dictated by the constitution, which is quite clear on this • topic.
> > There are no such thing as "illegal
> > weapons."
>
> Laws be damned, huh?
That's right.
> Bill of Rights takes presidence over all else?
Yes. It does.
> You
> might actually want to READ my post in reply to Larry, about the Bill of
> Rights and it's relevance today. No matter how it happened, the laws of the
> United States are in place, and part of being a member of society is
> following the rules as stated.
No. I am a member of society, and I don't follow rules that are unethical when
I find a reasonable way around them. I simply won't play that game with you
and your kind.
> If, in your free time, you want to lobby to
> change those rules, good for you! That's what an open political system is
> for. Have fun.
Agreed.
> If, in your free time, you want to plot to overthrow the
> government, or commit acts of violence aginst innocents to get your points
> across, you might want to have coffee ready for the goverment officials
> coming to your door with their warrants.
Agreed.
> > > "How were the fires started?:
> >
> > Again, I'm not sure how this affects the tragic nature of the events.
>
> They killed themselves.
Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Now I get it. You think that if you say it often
enough, someone will start to believe it. I have to think that everyone who
would fall for that fairytale already fell for that several years ago.
> > How does incendiary grenades fired by FBI agents sound as a plausible
> > explanation? I remember sitting on
> > my couch watching the news as federal agents fired incendiary grenades into • the
> > Branch Davidian's home as an
> > FBI official stated to the reporter on camera that they were not doing that.
> > It was in the background! And
> > only recently (I heard it on an NPR news program 1-2 weeks ago) the FBI has
> > admitted to having used such
> > devices. Duh!
>
> Incendiary TEAR-GAS projectiles. TEAR-GAS. Hello? TEAR-GAS is used when you
> DON'T want to kill someone. The flash-bang action is necessary to help the
> device penetrate and stun those nearby. Try reading, then try understanding.
So it's no problem that they were firing incendiary devices into a flamable
structure and lying to the public about it? And after that, when they make up
this kerosene story (which the local forensic people disagreed with before
being silenced) we're just supposed to accept that because we're good little
consumers of the USA?
> > erosion of justice in the US.
>
> Funny thing about that. I wasn't killed in some mis-guided Branch Davidian
> protest,
Neither was anyone else. They were attacked in the night by unknown
assailants. They returned fire. They couldn't leave. They had no way out of
the situation. God was slow with instruction that they believed they had to
wait for. They weren't protesting anything at all. They were shot at!
> some brave government agents gave their lives up to protect me.
> Sounds like justice is working just fine to me.
Some criminal dogs were given their justice. Too bad more of them won't
follow.
> > > Please do not
> > > propose to lump me into a group when you have no real idea who I am or what
> > > I believe/think, especially if what you DO know of me from LUGNET will not
> > > support the lumping-in.
> >
> > I only spoke what I saw. Don't lump yourself in if you don't want people
> > calling what they see.
>
> Look! I'm in the civil majority! What was that about majority rules?
Majority rule sucks! Your silly worship of unfettered democracy is only a
half-step up from dictatorship. We don't need to be ruled. I don't give a
rat's ass if you're in the majority. You, right along with the rest of them,
are wrong.
> And
> what do the Libertarians hope to become? Oh yeah, the civil majority. Good
> luck. You obviously have your work cut out for you.
I'm not a Libertarian. I don't hold out the slightest hope of them ever
becoming a force in the US. It simply won't happen.
> > > But then, I would guess that
> > > you don't agree with the ruling, huh? Only thing is, it's been done.
> >
> > Of course I don't. I've analyzed the situation with nothing to protect. It • is
> > blatantly obvious
>
> ...to you...
To anyone who looks at all the facts and accounts of what happened and imagines
what it would be like to be one of them.
> > What does "it's been done" mean? Do you
> > mean that a court made a decision and so we must accept their findings as
> > truth? I will never agree to that. I would rather die.
>
> I wonder if that would be 'tragic'? Or would you be sure to make it that way
> by taking a bunch of innocent folks with you to make a statement?
So I guess you won't explain or take a stance on this one? All I get is silly
ad hominems?
> > What about when a state congress rules that pi=3.14 (with out continuing
> > digits)? What about when a court
> > convicts a murderer and sentences them to death and kids in J-school unearth
> > loads of contratictory evidence
> > that the police didn't or couldn't obtain and it turns out that the state
> > gassed the wrong guy? The truth is not
> > defined by a court.
>
> It is in a legal sense if you live in the United States. At least right now
> it is.
Do you believe "facts" because a court decides they are "truth" "in a legal
sense?"
> Sarcasm. Lets be blatent. YOUR VALUES SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE AN
> ACCURATE ESTIMATE OF AMERICAN PUBLIC OPINION. YOU HAVE SELF-ELECTED TO
> CONTRIBUTE YOUR OPINION HERE, AND CALL IT THE TRUTH. Hope that clears it up.
I don't think that I or anyone else would suggest that _my_ views are public
opinion. I don't think that. I call the truth, things that I know to be
correct. It's not that hard.
> > What?!?!? Who did they murder? And who the hell are you to say that their
> > little religion was false? I mean,
> > I agree that their pantheon doesn't actually exist, but I think that about
> > whatever supernatural beliefs you have
> > too. If you are a Christian (I seriously don't know)
>
> None of your business, just like I haven't disclosed my political party. It
> is not relevant to this debate, unless you really need to draw some lines.
> But you won't get it from me.
I wasn't trying to hit a nerve or anyhing. I didn't realize anyone considered
that protected information.
> > No. Each man who fired and the management who sent them there are all
> > murderers. Each one should be
> > tried. If I was told by my employer to do that, I would refuse.
>
> Unless you had the balls to be a government agent, someone who knows it is
> in the job description to lay their lives on the line for orders, trusting
> their superiors to make the calls, and to take the responsibility.
Which they didn't do. No one took responsibility. Reno apologized for the
mishandling and a few wrists were slapped.
> Umm...no. I just don't want you to go all nut-case-y anywhere near where me
> and my family might be in harms way.
But really, my point was that I don't understand why you would think that I
might possibly do that? I don't hurt anything when I can possibly avoid it.
> And you get to be the final judge of what and who those evils are? Glad I'm
> not evil.
Everyone gets to judge. Each of us as individuals have a responsibility to
judge that kind of thing. I thought everyone knew that.
> > (I am opposed to McVeigh's execution, like I am all executions, for lots of
> > reasons. But that's not what I was
> > saying.)
>
> Hmmm...innocents should be bombed into non-existence, and militant
> quasi-religious groups should have as big a stockpile of weapons as they
> want before they 'go into battle', but killers shouldn't be executed? You
> truly scare me. Seriously.
I would be truly curious to see what I wrote that gave you the impression that
"innocents should be bombed." The Branch Davidians were clearly religious, and
quasi-militant. I think you misplaced the "quasi-." I've been around
genuinely militant groups. They have real weapons. Does everyone who believes
we shouldn't have a death penalty scare you? How odd.
> > Same with the government protecting itself. (hint: they're lying)
>
> (hint: they're doing their job)
They're supposed to be lying?
> To quote you: "I certainly agree that he shouldn't have done what he did.
> But I'm not
> convinced that peace is always the way to go."
Right...so I think that McVeigh is a criminal. And I think that there are some
times when humans are justified in aggressing against one another. And you do
too! You clearly think that McVeigh's execution was a good thing...that's not
peacefull. So really, it sounds like you and I agree totally with that
statement. What's the problem?
> > Koresh didn't want to harm you. If all they were there to do was protect us,
> > that would be one thing.
> > Deciding to joy ride with some new hardware and kill off some particularly
> > disenfranchised citizens, on the
> > other hand, is completely unacceptable.
>
> Your opinion.
Yes. It absolutely is my opinion that citizens should not be killed just
because they have atypical religion. It rather disgusts me that you don't
agree.
> A dissenting drop in the ocean of consent
Passive sheep believing what the government spoon feeds us. I'm happy to swim
against that flow.
> Keep fighting, Chris, but you might want to face
> the reality of the real world one day.
Check.
> I've tried hard to keep these replies
> civil and factual.
You have failed on both counts. (I do have to say that your civility was way
below what I'm used to here, while your facts were only a little off. I just
wanted to give credit where credit was due.)
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
| 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
| 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)
|
271 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
|
|
|
|
