Subject:
|
Re: Waco (time for a Subject change already)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:38:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
712 times
|
| |
|
|
Matthew Gerber wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Childish, huh? I think what I wrote was clever and quite well thought out. I
> certainly got across the points I was trying to make.
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 you are the ones outside the norm. Most of the rest of us realize that
YES the government/courts can do wrong, and NO, they don't ALWAYS do wrong, with
malicious intent.
Most people with a healthy view on life tend to try to at least somewhat balance the
extremes of scales. The unhealthy ones do not. What is truly scary is when
extremists from either end of a scale gain power.
> > > 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.
>
> I'd cleverly cite a dictionary passage here, but you would whine about it.
> Your truth is fine for you, even if it doesn't mesh with the reality of truth.
Matt, so you're saying that if the majority says something is so, that makes it
true? Scary.
> > 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.
>
> On the Libertarian thing, I'm sorry. You seemed to fit in with the party
> wags, especially since you were replying to things in this thread...
>
> About the sheriff...sounds like he got some good publicity out of it...I
> suppose his is an elected position...
So you just sweep under the rug the FACT that the Sheriff had taken Koresh into
custody before? Something that important, the base for the entire escalation to
murder (I won't say who the murderers were, believe what you want), and you just try
to pass it off as grandstanding for the press?
> I am here to prove that you are an abberation, and that good people exist,
> who sanely believe that justice can be done within the systems available to
> us. I am responding because if I can keep even one person from reading your
> drivil and believing it here, I may have saved one or more innocent lives.
You're showing yourself to be "an aberration". Most realistic people realize that
the gubmint isn't ALWAYS right, and take anything it says with a necessary amount of
skepticism (that amount varies by how many special interests are involved, among
other things), unlike you.
> > > 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.
>
> And you are welcome to do so (not follow rules YOU feel to be unethical).
> However, conversely, you have no right to endanger others, who are also
> persuing life, liberty and happiness, and you keep referring to the folks
> with guns as tragic victims and that you feel violence is justified whenever
> Christopher Weeks says it is. It's not a game...it's life. My life, and my
> wife's, and my kid's, and everyone else. We as a society make the rules, and
> we as a society should follow them.
I sure as hell hope YOU aren't making the rules, you scare me. You seem to have no
problem turning the US into Big Brother with no rights for the individual. If you
so believe in that, move to some other country with no individual rights, and leave
those of us concerned with our individual rights here in the US alone.
> > > 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
>
> The first ones were fired at the concrete bunker. The next ones were
> injected at point-blank range. The explosive force of those devices are only
> rated to get them through the material, not to ignite it. If you claim to
> know weapons as well as you do, you would know these things. The fires that
> consumed the above bround structure were started by the BDs. Give it up.
I think you both need to give it up. Until we have a time machine that can see any
point in space-time, NEITHER of you can state with any certainty what truly started
the fires. YOU give it up (BOTH of you).
> > > Funny thing about that. I wasn't killed in some mis-guided Branch Davidian
> > > protest,
> >
> > Neither was anyone else.
>
> Ah! But it is you who likes to live in "could-happen" land (all the things
> that you seem so afraid of the government possibly doing to you). It may
> have been pre-emptive, but the problem was taken care of.
And THIS doesn't scare you? Pre-emptive strikes don't scare you? What about when
the government makes up more and more ridiculous, far-fetched, or fallacious reasons
to strike preemptively? The more they get away with, the more they will do, and
sooner or later, they CAN be knocking down your door. It won't matter whether you
think you've done nothing wrong or not. If the gubmint pulls out paperwork (real or
not) "proving" that you were a danger (after you're already dead and can't refute
it, of course), others like you will just nod their heads and say "He shouldn't have
been such a Bad Man".
You really do scare me. You simply don't belong in the US, if you have no care
whatsoever for the basic freedoms this country was founded on.
> > > > > 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!
>
> Only to you, since you ain't one of the majority.
I AM one of the majority, and I still think it sucks.
> And let's not forget,
> majority rule does not mean blind adherence to the status quo, you need to
> allow for some grey in there.
Practice what you are preaching...
> > 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.
>
> Hey, sit in your little Unibomber shack and imagine the day away. I'm gonna'
> get on with life.
If you think nothing wrong was done by the government at Waco, you scare me.
(That's not to say the BDs weren't to blame too, but holding them fully responsible
for that fiasco is simply dreaming).
> > > 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.
>
> Seems to be lost on you. Although you are correct: your views are not public
> opinion, and God willing, they never will be.
Hopefully, neither will yours, or it will be time to pack up and get the hell out of
Dodge City. When the mass populace puts their full trust in the gubmint and lets it
completely erode civil liberties, it's time to leave, before the whole place goes to
hell.
> > > 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.
>
> Asked and answered previously. You can't make the statements you do in other
> parts of this thread and then say you try to avoid violence. Frankly, you
> sound more and more unbalanced with each ascertation you make.
Actually, it just proves you can't read worth squat. Chris in no way said he'd go
postal on anyone, he simply said that "But I'm not convinced that peace is always
the way to go." You're reading that to say that Chris is a gun toting radical (and
I've read your other comments, it SEEMS as if you think anyone that would own a gun
must be fringe radical, that scares me too) ready to kill people for the slightest
reason. That image is simply laughable.
> break multiple provisions in it by trying government agents. Your head is so
> far up you ass that you don't know when it's day or night. Perhaps you need
> to re-examine your opinions and beliefs before posting more in this thread.
Tut-tut, that's going WAY beyond standard insults (more than I insulted Dan's
ideas).
You're taking this to personal. You should leave for a few days and chill out.
> <not responding to further remarks, snipped here>
>
> I'm done here. I need to get on with life now, for my own sanity, and my
> family's hapiness.
Don't let the door...
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Waco (time for a Subject change already)
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
