Subject:
|
Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 28 May 2005 20:29:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2093 times
|
| |
|
|
John wrote:
> > You know, just about when I get calloused enough to your idiocy, you blindside
> > me with yet another anti-American view that is beyond reason.
>
> What is beyond reason is drawing conclusions when you aren't anywhere near in
> command of all of the facts.
What is beyond reason is blindly believing a government that refuses to divulge
details of the confinements.
> > and deny basic freedoms to many,
>
> Wrong again.
Gay Marriage? Go ahead, tell me you support it. If you do, then you've been lying
for a long time.
> > because
> > their morals don't meet up to Mr. High And Mighty.
>
> That's what you'd like to believe, I know. I thought the Left was all about
> "nuances". You seem to like black and white a lot...
Gay Marriage.
> > > I was speaking more in a historical context. Many Arabs envision a
> > > theocratic Muslim world society, and thus have no basis for agreement with us
> > > whatsoever, and perhaps never will. Until Arab countries are run by their
> > > people for their people, I will regard them with suspicion.
> >
> > Yet you want to sweep possible voting fraud under the rug. Such fraud that
> > may prove OUR country is NOT run "by the people for the people".
>
>
> Again with the fraud. It's interesting-- I remember Dems talking about Diebold
> fraud months before the election. Forget it, Tom. It's a canard. I am trying
> to give you some good advice, but I know that you will never accept the truth
> because it is simply too painful. Why else cling to the notion without tangible
> evidence [so] tenaciously?
No evidence is forthcoming because the machines deny such evidence, or the gubmint
won't release it. How convenient for your hawks.
> > > I disagree with your assertment that the situation is a "disaster", because
> > > it isn't a "disaster", and the impetus is on you to show that it is, because
> > > it is {your} claim.
> >
> > 1500+ US soldiers
> > 10s of 1000s of Iraqis
> > hundreds of billions of $
> >
> > all gone in that quagmire. And you don't call it a disaster?
>
> No, Tom. What I call a disaster is a nuke denotated in either LA or NYC or
> both. Your list above looks like chump change by comparison.
What in the HECK does Iraq have to do with a nuke in the US in any way shape or
form? You're delusional.
> > We will hemhorrage money until we're bankrupt, if idiots like Bush continue to
> > make it into office. How we can be so arrogant as to think we can't be spent
> > into the ground like the USSR was, is beyond me.
>
> We can't afford [not] to throw everything we have at terrorism {at this
> juncture} in order to thwart the unthinkable in the future.
Until we spend ourselves into Third World poverty, and lose all our freedoms in the
meantime? No thanks.
I'll take my idea if liberty over your dark scary one.
--
Tom Stangl
*http://www.vfaq.com/
*DSM Visual FAQ home
*http://www.vfaq.net/
*Prius Visual FAQ Home
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
16 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
|
|
|
|
