Subject:
|
Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 15 Sep 2001 16:27:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
723 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ed Jones writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Not an overreaction nor deliberate maliciousness. Just stating my opinion >that the LP Statement is moot.
That's a far different statement than your previous and I welcome your
expressing your opinion. But calling it pandering is a smear.
> The LP must know that their opinion in this crises
> is moot.
"Crisis" unless we have several concurrent ones (which I guess you could say
we do). I have already shown why it is in fact, not moot. You may disagree.
> Whether or not you like it, the majority of the country could care
> less about the LP (as the voters have decided) or their opinion.
Again, majorities do not decide everything once and for all. In past
situations the LP has been influential far beyond its numbers whether you
care to admit it or not. I cannot say whether the LP will be influential or
not in this case. But why ascribe base motives baselessly? Would you require
the LP to carry out a calculus on whether it voicing policy is liable to
have any effect each and every time it speaks? Balderdash.
> The LP's only
> reason to release the statement is self-promotion.
Again, I feel this is false and have explained several times now why. You
can agree or disagree as you choose.
> But unlike the "big two", I
> have yet to see a statement that the LP would support the decisions of the
> President in
> any
(emphasis mine)
> actions taken (have I somehow missed it?).
You haven't missed it, unless I missed it too. No such statement was made. I
suspect you won't find such a blank check issued by the LP. I certainly
won't issue one. Will you?
If the president says we are going to glaze Afghanistan (which is a possible
action, however improbable, but you *did* say "any") I won't support it, the
LP won't support it and I suspect you would not either.
Or will you in fact support whatever the president decides to do, whether
that be nothing or nuke the entire middle east? Goodness save us all if that
is a majority opinion. America is a country that is bigger than that I hope.
> Now exactly how am I supressing debate?
The original charge, in my view, made just that attempt, in tone and word
choice. I'm glad to see you returning to rationality a bit. I'm done with
this subthread if you are.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
| 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
| (...) 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)
|
49 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
