| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> Scott,
>
> How bullheadedly DENSE are you going to be? You only seem to be this stupid when
> answering Larry's posts, I think it's time you at least try to engage your brain
> before answering any posts from him...
>
> Scott A wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > >
> > > > > > ==+==
> > > > > > I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> > > > > > child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> > > > > > The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
> > > > > > ==+==
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you still stand by that?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes.
> > > >
> > > > Do you disagree with this comment:
> > > >
> > > > "Just because Saddam Hussein doesn’t care about the children doesn’t mean
> > > > that it is acceptable for us to punish the innocent and helpless when he
> > > > hides behind them. We should confront dictators face-to-face rather than
> > > > adopting policies that are harmful to children and the people of Iraq."
> > >
> > > No, I do not disagree with this comment. There is no inconsistency with what
> > > I am saying, either.
> >
> > Even when it is put in context (which you deleted):
> >
> > ==+==
> > It was made by a Libertarian Congressional Candidate 2000. He was apparently
> > against the "violence and economic sanctions perpetrated by our government’s
> > policies towards Iraq".
> > ==+==
>
> SO WHAT?!?
>
> Larry has repeatedly stated that while he is a Libertarian, he doesn't agree with
> the LP on many things.
I doubt that is LP policy... I may be wrong. Did I say Larry should agree
with it just because it is related to the LP?
>
> How many times does he have to say that he doesn't toe the line 100% with the LP
> before it sinks into your thick skull?
My skull is the normall thickness thak you!
>
> And why does this context do anything to affect the fact that there is no
> inconsistency with what Larry was saying?
I think there is.
> It does not, it's just you wasting
> everyone's time again, digging at something that has absolutely nothing to do with
> the issue.
Perhaps if Larry answered my point this would be clear to me?
Scott A
>
>
>
> > Now, lets return to the rest of my message which you deleted:
> >
> > ==+==
> > Justin Raimondo (a fellow of the Center for Libertarian Studies, CA)
> > described the sanctions thus:
> >
> > "...mass murder, comparable in scope to the famine unleashed by Stalin
> > against several million kulaks. After six years of a near-total economic
> > embargo, the once thriving Iraqi middle class has ceased to exist, and a
> > country once proud of its modernity is being dragged down into the lowest
> > rungs of the Third World."
> >
> > Does anyone actually agree with you on this?
> >
> > ==+==
> >
> > Do you agree with Mr Raimondo?
>
> What, exactly, is your point?
>
> Larry has repeatedly mentioned that he doesn't agree with the sanctions, but he
> doesn't think the US should take the blame for them, SH should. Is this really so
> hard for you to grasp? Are you that dense?
We are taliking about the *effect* of the sanctions.
>
> WHO CARES whether he agrees with Mr Raimondo or not?
Perhaps me?
> He's already said he doesn't
> agree with sanctions, so the results of the sanctions don't really matter (as far
> as Larry's feelings), do they?
We are talking about *effect*.
>
>
> I won't apologize for being blunt or rude to you.
Tom, I don't expect you to.
> You have proven over and over
> again that, while you may be well educated, you can be blindingly stupid about the
> simplest statements.
As we all can be Tom.
> I'm so tired of you beating deceased equines on Larry's posts, especially when his opinions/stands on many points are so abundantly clear
> to anyone else that can read.
I think these horses are still alive. I'm not the only one who has asked
Larry these questions. His opinions are indeed clear - I do not dispute
that. It is the basis of these opinions that I am interested in. He makes
statements like this, but can not justify it in any real way:
==+==
I reject that the sanctions are the REASON that children (however many)
died. The sanctions do not prevent the flow of food into the country.
I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
==+==
I accept that is his opinion 100%. I am just interested in how he reached
that opinion. Was it another of his "hunches"? Do you agree with it?
Scott A
>
>
> I sure hope this kill filter in Messenger works...
>
> --
> Tom Stangl
> ***http://www.vfaq.com/
> ***DSM Visual FAQ home
> ***http://ba.dsm.org/
> ***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: War
|
| Scott, How bullheadedly DENSE are you going to be? You only seem to be this stupid when answering Larry's posts, I think it's time you at least try to engage your brain before answering any posts from him... (...) SO WHAT?!? Larry has repeatedly (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
177 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
|
|
|
|
