Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:55:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
524 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Spencer Nowak writes:
> > > > So, I wonder why you require "hard" evidence for one side of the coin, but
> > > such amazingly soft (ie clearly fabricated) evidence for the other.
> >
> > Yes, because a UN weapons inspector says something, that makes it true.
> > That's the same bunch that includes members who tipped off the Iraqis that
> > inspections were about to happen so that they could shift stuff around.
> >
> > > I could say the same...
> > > why do we need "hard evidence" to go to war(which, by the way, we have given
> > > Saddam ample chances to avoid by simply telling us what he has) and "soft
> > > evidence" to stay home and let a US hating dictator get wmds?
> >
> > You know, for someone who said "I Have No Intention of Debating Any of
> > This...", he sure is talking a lot... but he's right, he's not debating,
> > he's just repeating "this war is about oil" over and over in hopes that
> > eventually everyone believes it.
> >
> > This war isn't about oil. The Bush crowd doesn't think that big. There is no
> > Grand Conspiracy to Take Over the World, starting with our civil liberties.
> > That's not the way it works. This war is about stupidity and not thinking
> > through what Jefferson said. This is Death by a Thousand Cuts.
> >
> > And those who go around ranting about Halliburton, Enron and Grand
> > Conspiracies actually do those working for freedom a disservice, because
> > they look so foolish doing so <...snip...>
>
> Thank you for saying so! I have about had it with RM's silly conspiratorial
> blathering.
Well, you're welcome, but I wish you would have left at least one more
sentence of what I posted, *the very next one* in fact:
"Ashcroft (and his bunch) actually ARE out there undermining liberty"
This is true, you can't argue it, so maybe that's why you snipped it? He's
YOUR AG after all, you voted for Bush.
There is no denying that we are less free now than we were last year, and
that inequality has been true, year by year, for some time, at least since
1989 (the end of the Reagan era) if not well before that.
What is most frustrating to me about RM is that he's within stalking
distance of the truth sometimes, but so clueless as to why some of what he
alleges is true.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
164 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
|
|
|
|
