 | | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) I would never presume such :) Here's an analogy--there are those who notice that the emperor has no clothes and think to themselves, "Well, that emperor is pretty dense to be walking around without any clothes--look at how much better I am (...) (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) The problem is not the analogy, but your misconception that you are the second guy in that example. (...) No, I'm just teasing you...well, and illustrating your constant fault-finding. . (...) And I really didn't mean that to apply to all (...) (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
Boy I hate when that happens--get a perfectly good tirade going and something happens with IE! Grr!!! Anywho, this time without the frothing (well, probably not...) (...) I am the second guy. Because you chose to misinterpret my intentions, doesn't (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) I am not questioning your intentions at all - I am trying to bring to your attention the consistently strident, holier-than-thou attitude that undermines the often quite valid points you have to make. Moving back up here after reading through (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) I didn't think I was, but if your interpretations of my writing style is 'holier than thou', I shall endeavour to rephrase. As it stands, my interpretations of your debating technique in this thread are--you're firmly ensconsed in what you (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | I'll just let Hillary speak for me-- was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
From (URL) I think that in the case of the [Bush] administration, they really believed it. They really thought they were right, but they didn't let enough sunlight into their thinking process to really have the kind of debate that needs to take (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) Okay - now, I've deleted all that preceeded this paragraph above because it indulges in everything you just disavowed. There, a clean slate. If you want to go back into the particulars, I'll be only too happy to shoot you down yet again. :-O (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) It isn't the height of arrogance to claim that anymore than it is the height of arrogance to claim we don't have it right. That is -->Bruce<--'s point. That is also the problem with moral relativism, but I digress. Getting back to "we've got (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) I wasn't really addressing your claim of whether we have it right or not. We do have some things right (democracy, freedom of the press, separation of church and state, freedom to move, freedom to leave) most of the time, and there are some (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) The examples of the things we have right are theories-- the examples of things we don't are specifics in trying to apply those theories. Of course we aren't perfect, but we have the perfect blueprint of government-- namely Freedom and (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) No, I am not advocating a tyrany of the majority, I'm saying that is the practical outcome. It recognizing what the difference between what you might want, and what you get. -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
