Debate : 12668


Off-Topic / Debate / 12668

LP statement on terrorist attacks —Larry Pieniazek

The following is a statement from the US LP, received on my mailing list. I know I've been foaming a bit but I think it is worth publishing here (1) note particularly that it seems to be in tune with what a lot of people are saying: - we need a (...) (23 years ago, 13-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Ed Jones

(...) Yep folks, the LP has joined the rest of the political parties - they are saying what many have already said before them, they add nothing new or even anything displaying any great intelligence. Yes, they are pandering to the people. Ho hum. (23 years ago, 14-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes, they are saying nothing new, in that the LP has been calling for us to have less entanglements and less alliances, and less meddling in the internal affairs of other countries. Yes, they are saying nothing new, in that they have been (...) (23 years ago, 14-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Ed Jones

(...) Larry, give me a break. You're much more intelligent that you are trying to act here. The LP is taking political advantage of the current crises to promote themselves. If that's not pandering, then I don't know what is. (23 years ago, 14-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I don't see how you can possibly say that. It's a statement of position and a request to the membership to take certain actions. Are you saying that if I went to the DNC website I wouldn't see a similar statement? I did, and there is (URL) you (...) (23 years ago, 14-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

A Measured Response (was re: LP statement on terrorist attacks) —Richard Marchetti

Hey: I'll give the LP statement this much (and beyond this I just don't care what else they said) -- it suggests a course of action that is a hell of a lot more reasonable than what many here have been offering up of late. It suggests we make a very (...) (23 years ago, 14-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Have you hugged a terrorist today? (was: A Measured Response...) —Amy Hughes

(...) I'll grant only that we share much genetic material. Maybe even moreso than we do with, say, mold spores. (...) What would you consider a measured response? Perhaps we could invite Bin Laden to a national barbeque and have a huge love- in, (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Have you hugged a terrorist today? (was: A Measured Response...) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I disagree with Richard and agree with you on this. I have said before that I personally require certain standards of behaviour before I will consider someone as human (and not merely genetically related to me). These terrorists, by my (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Have you hugged a terrorist today? (was: A Measured Response...) —Amy Hughes

(...) My apologies. I forgot which emoticon to use to indicate "user is being sarcastic and employing gross exaggeration" :-) Amy (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Have you hugged a terrorist today? (was: A Measured Response...) —Ross Crawford

(...) And I think that's going way too far. Their genes have little if anything to do with what they've done. Sweeping statements like this are unlikely to solve anything, and they just serve to increase hate in the community. How do you think (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Have you hugged a terrorist today? (was: A Measured Response...) —Scott Arthur

"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GJowB8.H8s@lugnet.com... (...) than we (...) that (...) Seriously, what nation in the world has not "initiated the use of force in a cowardly and craven manner against innocents"? (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Have you hugged a terrorist today? (was: A Measured Response...) —Lawrence Wilkes

"Amy Hughes" <lugnews@amyhughes.org> wrote in message news:GJotMs.A8t@lugnet.com... (...) Governments hug terrorists everyday. Yasser Arafat was the bin Laden of his day Irish terrorists now sit around the same peace table with those who thought (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Have you hugged a terrorist today? (was: A Measured Response...) —Scott Arthur

"Amy Hughes" <lugnews@amyhughes.org> wrote in message news:GJotMs.A8t@lugnet.com... (...) than we (...) love- (...) strike a (...) If it meant that what happened on Tuesday would never happen again - would it not be worth it? (...) Islam. ...and 4) (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Ed Jones

(...) Larry, you never cease to amaze me with the insults you will throw out at anyone who disagrees with you. Pandering - catering to the tastes and desires of others; exploiting their weaknesses. The LP is jumping on a crises situation to promote (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Larry Pieniazek

(...) That's a mischaracterization. Read on. (...) Let's be clear here. We are, in case you hadn't noticed, having a bit of a debate about what we ought to do. Militarily, economically, from a foreign policy perspective, you name it. That debate is (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Lindsay Frederick Braun

Thought this might make interesting reading. It's by Harry Browne (LP) and though I'm a tad more hawkish than he, he makes great points in favor of moderation. (URL) He articulates what he believes, but most importantly answers some of the (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Ross Crawford

(...) I wish I'd seen this earlier. The section I especially relate to is: "The U.S. went to Vietnam to stop the Communist dominos from falling, and the entire region fell to the communists. The U.S. invaded Panama, supposedly to end drug-dealing (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Amy Hughes

Ross Crawford wrote, quoting Harry Brown: (...) The US did not achieve its objective because it was defeated in battle, which doesn't prove its reasoning for being there was flawed. (...) The US went to Panama to remove its two-bit dictator, which (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Ed Jones

> > I guess you don't know what pandering is, then... In fact maybe you don't > > know what you're talking about at all, with respect to this. That's > > understandable, you're pretty close to the epicenter and can't be expected > > to be 100% (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Then why are you raving about it? Chris (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Ed Jones

(...) I'm certainly not the one raving - LAR is. I simply stated that the LP issuing a statement is pandering for self promotoion. (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Larry Pieniazek

(...) It's Lar, not LAR. Please keep it straight, if you would, ED. Thanks. (...) And when I explained why it isn't, you foamed. I foamed back. Sorry. Do only the two big parties even *get* to have an opinion? Blech. Thank you LFB for the link to HB (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Ed Jones

(...) Lar, in this crises, good or bad, the "two big parties" in power hold the only opinions that will be acted upon. While many people and groups may hold opinions, the decisions about to be made will be made by those in power. A very simple (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I hope to god that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats will either. What I hope is that all groups, parties, and individuals make their voices heard so that we can go forward as a country united rather than straggling and unsupportive of (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Dave Schuler

(...) True enough, but I believe Ed's point was that, given the party composition of Congress, the likelihood of a Libertarian Congressional Representative contributing to the forthcoming national policy is quite remote. I don't believe (and please (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Ed Jones

(...) What (...) so (...) remote. (...) (Scarcasm on) Actually Dave, I'm all for a Republican War against Bin Laden. (scarcasm off). Dave, thank you summing up what I have been saying. (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I don't think that's what he was saying at all. He has said that the LP has no business making its opinion known. (accusing it of pandering is in essence making that charge) I reject that notion, categorically. The LP has as much right (and (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Ed Jones

(...) Not an overreaction nor deliberate maliciousness. Just stating my opinion that the LP Statement is moot. The LP must know that their opinion in this crises is moot. Whether or not you like it, the majority of the country could care less about (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Larry Pieniazek

(...) That's a far different statement than your previous and I welcome your expressing your opinion. But calling it pandering is a smear. (...) "Crisis" unless we have several concurrent ones (which I guess you could say we do). I have already (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Larry Pieniazek

I am still "done" but I spotted a bit of poor wording... fixing it: (...) "that is a majority opinion" refers to the notion of supporting the president no matter what is decided. I don't think nuking is likely to be a majority opinion, (knock on (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Dave Schuler

(...) In all seriousness, this is news to me. I admit that the LP's views are sometimes in line with what actually comes to pass (just as my views are sometimes also in line), but I wasn't aware of any direct influence. Can you give a cite? Dave! (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well, how about the fact that Ron Paul, former LP candidate for president, is once again in the GOP and is once again a representative from Texas? If you ask him I suspect he'll tell you he is just as Libertarian as ever and gives just as much (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Dave Schuler

(...) I'm not sure either, but I don't think he has any credibility in claiming that he's just as Libertarian (capital L) as ever; if he were, he surely wouldn't have joined the GOP. It's analogous to a certain former GOP member who's now (...) (23 years ago, 16-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) It sounds like you are assuming that politial party membership is by nature mutually exclusive of other party membership. It might be that way by law (I really have no idea) but it shouldn't be. I agree with some of the stances that each of (...) (23 years ago, 16-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Dave Schuler

(...) But if you were going to run for office, under which party would you do it? It's fine (and appropriate) for individuals to support such political groups as are in line with the individual's views, but when one is running for office (in the (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well, I admit I am myself ambivalent about this. But consider this... (and know that since I am not Ron Paul I am speculating. But I HAVE pored over his website to see where he stands on stuff) The Republican party makes you sign no oath, and (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Dave Schuler

(...) I agree that if an LP member agrees with the tenets of the platform on which he is running, then he's under no conflict. If, however, he's (an abstract "he" rather than Paul) biting his tongue on major issues with which he might disagree (like (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes. But there is no requirement to agree with the GOP platform in order to run as a GOP candidate. I haven't pored over Ron's speeches in the level of detail to be able to tell if he bit his tongue or actually came out and said "I don't (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Dave Schuler

(...) Hmm... I think I'm slipping back and forth between Paul's case(1), so you're most likely correct about his consistency. I was speaking more in the abstract, conjecturing a case in which Candidate X ran under another party by falsely professing (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Dr. No, or how to be a Republican and libertarian at the same time —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: <snip some musings about the nature of principle in an unprincipled party> Here is the LP's spin on "Dr. NO", from their excellent list of net liberty resources here: (URL) J. ought to like paragraph (...) (23 years ago, 27-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Ed Jones

(...) Let me take this a step further. Do you really think Dubya or Colin Powell were sitting back waiting to read the LP opinion before they started planning whatever offensive will occur? (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No. Their loss. But that doesn't make it less valid an opinion or less valid as input to the common people who ought to make their stance known to their congressmen, who ultimately have to bear responsibility for funding and approving. That an (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, not unless it's being ignored *because* it's wrong or even irrelevant; that is, the fact that an opinion is ignored cannot be taken as proof that it's being ignored for political reasons. Dave! (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Or as disproof either. You are correct sir. Insert a "necessarily" in the appropriate place so my statement reads: That an opinion is being ignored doesn't *necessarily* make it wrong or even irrelevant. I would say that these particular (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP SPAM statement on terrorist attacks —Scott Arthur

"Ed "Boxer" Jones" <edboxer@aol.com> wrote in message news:GJo2F3.L5o@lugnet.com... (...) here. (...) to (...) I agree, the post was nothing more than the usual SPAM Larry often subjects us to - despite the fact that he knows it is not welcome: (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP SPAM statement on terrorist attacks —Mike Stanley

(...) I welcomed it. I think Larry and Ed may be splitting semantic hairs over whether or not it is pandering (or promotional), but I'm glad to know what their stance is. The one thing they say that I find myself agreeing with most is the opinion (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP SPAM statement on terrorist attacks —Richard Marchetti

(...) Exactly! -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 16-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Scott Arthur not welcome? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) sufficient to make that post or class of posts "not welcome" then every single post you make is "not welcome" because there are people saying that very thing about your posts. That's taking your argument to its logical extreme. Further, you (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Marc Nelson, Jr.

(...) This is why I have always thought that the worst part of the LP platform was its unrealistic foreign policy plank. The problem isn't that we have been meddling too much in other countries' affairs, it's that we haven't done enough. If we had (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)