Subject:
|
Re: Waco (time for a Subject change already)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Jun 2001 04:02:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
685 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> 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".
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.
> 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.
Not even interested in having to quote my own words from the posts proving
your ascertations wrong. The gist: you are right, and all of my posts have
proven that we are on the same page. Look for words like grey area if you go
back and actually read what I have typed previously.
> 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.
Words in my mouth again. No takers here Tom.
> > > 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?
Asked and answered.
> > 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 have a real knack for the putting of your words in other peoples mouths.
It's getting tiresome here.
<snipping lots more irrelevant ranting from Tom>
Tom, I'm too tired of your accusations to continue answering each and every
false statement you make. Suffice to say, you seem to have attributed lots
of words, beliefs and ideas to me that have no real basis in what I have
previously typed here. Frankly, that is bull, and I think you know it. I
have already spent far too much of my time trying to set this straight. I
will allow my previous posts to speak for me, and just ask those reading to
ignore any statment you have attributed to me that is not borne up by my
previous posts. Further, you seem to need me to be the direct opposite of
someone else here (Larry?) so you can draw yourself some lines in the sand.
Sorry, no takers here.
Matt
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Waco (time for a Subject change already)
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
