BoatBanter.com

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)
-   General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)
-   -   O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/1972-o-t-did-i-really-say-how-soon-they-forget.html)

Dave Hall November 14th 03 01:59 PM

O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
 
jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

My wife would never terminate a pregnancy. She considers it to be
murder, as do I.

I am a conservative. My views reflect the notion that people assume a
degree of personal responsibility for the actions that they engage it.
That means playing the cards you are dealt, and not looking to pass the
blame off onto other vague entities. A major philosophical difference
between liberals and conservatives.


Your arguments are ill-formed in unsubstantial. I can't afford the time
to banter with you.


In other words, you are in denial and are unprepared to back up what you
believe with anything that resembles logic or rationality. You beliefs
are based on superficial sound byte re-enforcement, based on biased
opinions of other equally sincere but misguided people.

Are you capable of an independant thought or are all of your premises
based on cut-N-paste articles?



You've avoided answering the question at least 100 times.

Does your wife believe the government should be able to command her to
bring her pregnancy to full term?


They don't have to, since she feels that terminating it early is akin to
murder.

But since we don't try to prevent murder by forbidding people from
coming into contact with one another I guess, by the same token, the
government should not prevent people from seeking an abortion. But if
someone does it, they should be arrested for murder.

Why is the issue of abortion the only one where liberals favor a
person's right to choose? When it comes to programs like education,
healthcare, retirement, the right to carry arms, etc, you prefer
government mandates. Seems a bit duplicitous doesn't it?

I can pretty much guarantee you won't answer the question because you
probably don't know the answer yourself. And, just so you know, I
consider this pure speculation. No assertion of "fact."


And like so many other liberals, you'd be wrong.

Dave



Dave Hall November 14th 03 01:59 PM

O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
 
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


3) News you're not aware of: Drug lords in Colombia force small farmers

to
plant coca mixed in with food crops.


Sounds like a problem that the Columbian government should stop. If of
course, they're really not a silent party to it.


The drug lords kill anyone they want, including judges, military officers,
journalists. The government cannot stop it.


Then who is really in charge? Why should thugs be allowed to get away
with the things that they do? It's the same thing as what is going on in
the middle east. Why should thugs be allowed to hold the civilized world
hostage to their demands, while operating above the law, and with little
regard for their fellow humans? All the while, those who would seek to
end this sort of rogue tyrrany are prevented from doing so by
humanitarian restraint.



The government spots the coca plants
from the air and drops herbicides on them. People are reporting lots of
health problems which are known to the companies which make these
herbicides. The companies are not claiming the stuff is safe on food

crops.
It's the type of stuff highway crews sometimes use to control weeds.

It's
not meant to be used anywhere near food crops.


So the problem becomes one of if you want good food, don't plant illegal
drug crops. Stop doing that and the problem goes away.


Do I need to explain everything to you? If they refuse to plant, they're
murdered, or they "go away on trips" on never come home. Which newspaper
did you say you read regularly, from front to back?


I know that. The point is, and the one you are trying to make here is
that the druggies threaten the farmers. The government poisons the
crops. So rather than put the blame on the drug lords for causing the
problem in the first place, you cite their seeming invincibility as a
justification for the government to just allow them to grow illegal
crops, and to show compassion for the farmers by not attempting to
enforce the law

You do know what message that would send don't you?



4) The farmers aren't like you and I. They don't have a Safeway or Giant
supermarket 3 blocks away. If you contaminate their crops, they may

still
have no choice but to eat it. This issue, the health issue, has nothing

to
do with anyone's opinion of drug laws.


Sure it does. As long as these drug lords are allowed to run roughshot
over the farmers, then they are ultimately to blame for the decline of
the health of their fellow countrymen.


That's roughshoD. And, the druglords do anything they want because they're
better equipped than the Colombian military. We continue giving money to the
military, but it seems to vanish.


Gee, maybe GWB should send in the next group of troops there huh?



I would organize a revolt.....


...and you'd end up tied to the wall of a hut in the jungle, until your
captors decided to either kill you or cut you loose. They kill most of their
captives.


Who would plant the crops if all the farmers are dead?


Here's a crazy thought, although you'll never follow through because you're
a unpatriotic little pussy:


How do you know how patriotic I am? I support our effort to erradicate
terrorism, and I'm not critical of our leaders' intentions for petty
reasons when a united front is necessary to achieve this goal. So what's
your excuse?


Write to your representatives and tell them 30
years is long enough to see that a program doesn't work. No more money for
Colombia.


I don't agree. We need to form a combined task force to sweep in and
burn the druggies out.

Dave



Doug Kanter November 14th 03 03:14 PM

O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
 
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

The drug lords kill anyone they want, including judges, military

officers,
journalists. The government cannot stop it.


Then who is really in charge? Why should thugs be allowed to get away
with the things that they do? It's the same thing as what is going on in
the middle east. Why should thugs be allowed to hold the civilized world
hostage to their demands, while operating above the law, and with little
regard for their fellow humans? All the while, those who would seek to
end this sort of rogue tyrrany are prevented from doing so by
humanitarian restraint.


Why should thugs be allowed to get away with the things that they do? Dave,
there are countries in South America, Central America and Africa which have
been that way since I first became clearly aware of history, in the mid
1960s. Ever heard the term "banana republic"? It's got nothing to do with
clothing stores. Most intelligent historians attribute the problem to the
Cold War, when the U.S. and the USSR said "eenie meenie minie mo" and chose
which little countries were going to be their "allies". Meaning: We both
wanted a few friendly places to park our spies. By doing so, we labeled the
countries as "right" or "left". And, within each country various factions
labeled each other that way. Even the Catholic church earned a different
label depending on which country was doing the labeling and how powerful the
clergy was in terms of influencing the local "jefe" (boss).

We and the Soviets sent arms to these countries. Many of them are still
buying arms from us. We set up a cycle that may never end. If YOU can come
up with a solution, you'll win a Nobel prize. But you'll have to become
better informed.

Humanitarian restraint? Who do you feel is subject to that in Colombia?




Do I need to explain everything to you? If they refuse to plant, they're
murdered, or they "go away on trips" on never come home. Which

newspaper
did you say you read regularly, from front to back?


I know that. The point is, and the one you are trying to make here is
that the druggies threaten the farmers. The government poisons the
crops. So rather than put the blame on the drug lords for causing the
problem in the first place, you cite their seeming invincibility as a
justification for the government to just allow them to grow illegal
crops, and to show compassion for the farmers by not attempting to
enforce the law

You do know what message that would send don't you?


Let me see if I understand: You have herbicides which the manufacturer
honestly says will make people hideously ill if used on food crops. You use
it anyway, knowing full well that you will sicken your own citizens. What
message does THAT send? "You have a choice of being killed quickly by
criminals, or killed slowly by your own government. Choose." Is that the
message?




4) The farmers aren't like you and I. They don't have a Safeway or

Giant
supermarket 3 blocks away. If you contaminate their crops, they may

still
have no choice but to eat it. This issue, the health issue, has

nothing
to
do with anyone's opinion of drug laws.

Sure it does. As long as these drug lords are allowed to run roughshot
over the farmers, then they are ultimately to blame for the decline of
the health of their fellow countrymen.


That's roughshoD. And, the druglords do anything they want because

they're
better equipped than the Colombian military. We continue giving money to

the
military, but it seems to vanish.


Gee, maybe GWB should send in the next group of troops there huh?


Pretend you're the president. Please describe clearly the reason you'd give
the American people for such a military action.



I would organize a revolt.....


...and you'd end up tied to the wall of a hut in the jungle, until your
captors decided to either kill you or cut you loose. They kill most of

their
captives.


Who would plant the crops if all the farmers are dead?


I was referring not to the farmers, but to government officials, clergy,
foreign reporters and workers. Are you aware that 3 American civilians are
still being held hostage down there? I thought you told me that you DO read
or listen to legitimate news sources. Read the link below. This was on 60
Minutes a month or so ago. The story's been kept sort of quiet because our
government has some other weird reason for not wanting to move on it.

http://www.heldhostageincolombia.com/synopsis.html



Here's a crazy thought, although you'll never follow through because

you're
a unpatriotic little pussy:


How do you know how patriotic I am? I support our effort to erradicate
terrorism, and I'm not critical of our leaders' intentions for petty
reasons when a united front is necessary to achieve this goal. So what's
your excuse?


Write to your representatives and tell them 30
years is long enough to see that a program doesn't work. No more money

for
Colombia.


I don't agree. We need to form a combined task force to sweep in and
burn the druggies out.


Yeah. OK, Dave. We'll just sweep right in there. Do you know that opium's
being grown again on a large scale basis in Afghanistan, and we know about
it? As a longtime knowledgable gardener, you know that in many parts of that
country, there's little else that'll grow well enough to be of economic use
to the natives.

You really are a mess. Beginning this weekend, you will begin reading the
Sunday NY Times and Washington Post from beginning to end. And, you'll
listen to both the morning and evening NPR news broadcasts.



jps November 14th 03 04:30 PM

O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
 
In article ,
says...
jps wrote:

In article ,

says...

My wife would never terminate a pregnancy. She considers it to be
murder, as do I.

I am a conservative. My views reflect the notion that people assume a
degree of personal responsibility for the actions that they engage it.
That means playing the cards you are dealt, and not looking to pass the
blame off onto other vague entities. A major philosophical difference
between liberals and conservatives.


Your arguments are ill-formed in unsubstantial. I can't afford the time
to banter with you.


In other words, you are in denial and are unprepared to back up what you
believe with anything that resembles logic or rationality. You beliefs
are based on superficial sound byte re-enforcement, based on biased
opinions of other equally sincere but misguided people.

Are you capable of an independant thought or are all of your premises
based on cut-N-paste articles?


JESUS CHRIST DAVE!!! You're an incredible regurgitator of that which
you've been accused.

Not even a nice try. I'm on the verge of regarding you as a borg.

You've avoided answering the question at least 100 times.

Does your wife believe the government should be able to command her to
bring her pregnancy to full term?


They don't have to, since she feels that terminating it early is akin to
murder.

But since we don't try to prevent murder by forbidding people from
coming into contact with one another I guess, by the same token, the
government should not prevent people from seeking an abortion. But if
someone does it, they should be arrested for murder.

Why is the issue of abortion the only one where liberals favor a
person's right to choose? When it comes to programs like education,
healthcare, retirement, the right to carry arms, etc, you prefer
government mandates. Seems a bit duplicitous doesn't it?

I can pretty much guarantee you won't answer the question because you
probably don't know the answer yourself. And, just so you know, I
consider this pure speculation. No assertion of "fact."


And like so many other liberals, you'd be wrong.


I'd be right since you didn't answer the question. If you do know her
position then the answer is she doesn't accept the right wing's desire
to control her birth rights.

You'll never admit that because it'd cause your rec.boats world to come
crashing down around you.

Dave


Doug, he did it again. Didn't answer the question, nor will he ever.

Doug Kanter November 14th 03 04:33 PM

O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
 
"jps" wrote in message
...


And like so many other liberals, you'd be wrong.


I'd be right since you didn't answer the question. If you do know her
position then the answer is she doesn't accept the right wing's desire
to control her birth rights.

You'll never admit that because it'd cause your rec.boats world to come
crashing down around you.

Dave


Doug, he did it again. Didn't answer the question, nor will he ever.


He's afraid to talk to his own wife. That'll blow up in his face when the
children are grown and out of the house.



Dave Hall November 14th 03 07:52 PM

O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
 
Doug Kanter wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...


And like so many other liberals, you'd be wrong.


I'd be right since you didn't answer the question. If you do know her
position then the answer is she doesn't accept the right wing's desire
to control her birth rights.

You'll never admit that because it'd cause your rec.boats world to come
crashing down around you.

Dave


Doug, he did it again. Didn't answer the question, nor will he ever.


He's afraid to talk to his own wife. That'll blow up in his face when the
children are grown and out of the house.



Speculating again? You're good at it, if nothing else.

Dave



Dave Hall November 14th 03 07:52 PM

O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
 
jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
jps wrote:

In article ,

says...

My wife would never terminate a pregnancy. She considers it to be
murder, as do I.

I am a conservative. My views reflect the notion that people assume a
degree of personal responsibility for the actions that they engage it.
That means playing the cards you are dealt, and not looking to pass the
blame off onto other vague entities. A major philosophical difference
between liberals and conservatives.

Your arguments are ill-formed in unsubstantial. I can't afford the time
to banter with you.


In other words, you are in denial and are unprepared to back up what you
believe with anything that resembles logic or rationality. You beliefs
are based on superficial sound byte re-enforcement, based on biased
opinions of other equally sincere but misguided people.

Are you capable of an independant thought or are all of your premises
based on cut-N-paste articles?


JESUS CHRIST DAVE!!! You're an incredible regurgitator of that which
you've been accused.


Which you are evidently equally guilty of. You have yet to substantiate
any position you hold with anything more than cut and past articles. You
state many times that you diagree with conservate ideals, yet you offer
no rational reason why any of us should agree with you. Sound bytes and
catch phrases designed to appeal to emotions are hardly evidence enough.


When have I ever used cut and paste articles to make my point? You are
such a hypocrite, you can't even see it.



Not even a nice try. I'm on the verge of regarding you as a borg.


And until you can debate the issues with any depth beyond the sound-byte
level, I will regard you as a simpleton.



You've avoided answering the question at least 100 times.

Does your wife believe the government should be able to command her to
bring her pregnancy to full term?


They don't have to, since she feels that terminating it early is akin to
murder.

But since we don't try to prevent murder by forbidding people from
coming into contact with one another I guess, by the same token, the
government should not prevent people from seeking an abortion. But if
someone does it, they should be arrested for murder.

Why is the issue of abortion the only one where liberals favor a
person's right to choose? When it comes to programs like education,
healthcare, retirement, the right to carry arms, etc, you prefer
government mandates. Seems a bit duplicitous doesn't it?

I can pretty much guarantee you won't answer the question because you
probably don't know the answer yourself. And, just so you know, I
consider this pure speculation. No assertion of "fact."


And like so many other liberals, you'd be wrong.


I'd be right since you didn't answer the question. If you do know her
position then the answer is she doesn't accept the right wing's desire
to control her birth rights.


I'll make you a deal. If you can explain to me why a woman's right to
kill an unborn child should supercede that child's right to life, and
you can function on that level, I'll be more than happy to discuss the
dynamics of this issue. I refuse to give you a one dimensional answer to
such a multi-dimensional question.

And you also need to answer the question I posed to you about why
liberals are so gung-ho on the abortion choice issue, but shy away from
other issues of choice. Now try to explain that duplicity to me, if you
can.



You'll never admit that because it'd cause your rec.boats world to come
crashing down around you.


My self esteem is hardly defined by simple recreational pleasures such
as the intellectual equivilent of bitch slapping of emotionally blinded
liberals, with logic and rationality.

I learned to deal with issues starting as a young child. I am hardly a
fragile person, and I don't need "therapy".....



Dave


Doug, he did it again. Didn't answer the question, nor will he ever.


You are not worthy of an answer until you understand the question.

Dave



Dave Hall November 14th 03 07:52 PM

O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
 
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

The drug lords kill anyone they want, including judges, military

officers,
journalists. The government cannot stop it.


Then who is really in charge? Why should thugs be allowed to get away
with the things that they do? It's the same thing as what is going on in
the middle east. Why should thugs be allowed to hold the civilized world
hostage to their demands, while operating above the law, and with little
regard for their fellow humans? All the while, those who would seek to
end this sort of rogue tyrrany are prevented from doing so by
humanitarian restraint.


Why should thugs be allowed to get away with the things that they do? Dave,
there are countries in South America, Central America and Africa which have
been that way since I first became clearly aware of history, in the mid
1960s. Ever heard the term "banana republic"? It's got nothing to do with
clothing stores. Most intelligent historians attribute the problem to the
Cold War, when the U.S. and the USSR said "eenie meenie minie mo" and chose
which little countries were going to be their "allies". Meaning: We both
wanted a few friendly places to park our spies. By doing so, we labeled the
countries as "right" or "left". And, within each country various factions
labeled each other that way. Even the Catholic church earned a different
label depending on which country was doing the labeling and how powerful the
clergy was in terms of influencing the local "jefe" (boss).


You've just described the problem, now let's hear the solution.


We and the Soviets sent arms to these countries. Many of them are still
buying arms from us. We set up a cycle that may never end. If YOU can come
up with a solution, you'll win a Nobel prize. But you'll have to become
better informed.


Like many other liberals, you are excellent at outlining problems, but
fall far short on offering up solutions. Instead you spend time
ridiculing people who do offer solutions, even if they may have a
dubious chance of success. I get the distinct impression that you'd
prefer to just leave things go as they are, as you don't want to expend
the (admittently enourmous) effort to change things for the better.


I know that. The point is, and the one you are trying to make here is
that the druggies threaten the farmers. The government poisons the
crops. So rather than put the blame on the drug lords for causing the
problem in the first place, you cite their seeming invincibility as a
justification for the government to just allow them to grow illegal
crops, and to show compassion for the farmers by not attempting to
enforce the law

You do know what message that would send don't you?


Let me see if I understand: You have herbicides which the manufacturer
honestly says will make people hideously ill if used on food crops. You use
it anyway, knowing full well that you will sicken your own citizens. What
message does THAT send? "You have a choice of being killed quickly by
criminals, or killed slowly by your own government. Choose." Is that the
message?


It's better than doing NOTHING.



4) The farmers aren't like you and I. They don't have a Safeway or

Giant
supermarket 3 blocks away. If you contaminate their crops, they may
still
have no choice but to eat it. This issue, the health issue, has

nothing
to
do with anyone's opinion of drug laws.

Sure it does. As long as these drug lords are allowed to run roughshot
over the farmers, then they are ultimately to blame for the decline of
the health of their fellow countrymen.

That's roughshoD. And, the druglords do anything they want because

they're
better equipped than the Colombian military. We continue giving money to

the
military, but it seems to vanish.


Gee, maybe GWB should send in the next group of troops there huh?


Pretend you're the president. Please describe clearly the reason you'd give
the American people for such a military action.


To rid the world of deviant thugs who have little respet for law, and
for other people.



I would organize a revolt.....

...and you'd end up tied to the wall of a hut in the jungle, until your
captors decided to either kill you or cut you loose. They kill most of

their
captives.


Who would plant the crops if all the farmers are dead?


I was referring not to the farmers, but to government officials, clergy,
foreign reporters and workers. Are you aware that 3 American civilians are
still being held hostage down there? I thought you told me that you DO read
or listen to legitimate news sources. Read the link below. This was on 60
Minutes a month or so ago. The story's been kept sort of quiet because our
government has some other weird reason for not wanting to move on it.


Maybe because the story is lacking in credibility. There are a lot of
"stories" that make the rounds in the leftist propaganda rags. You may
think the reason that they rarely see the light of day in the mainstream
press, is due to some "vast right wing conspiracy" trying to keep a lid
on it. The more obvious reason could be that they lack truth.



Write to your representatives and tell them 30
years is long enough to see that a program doesn't work. No more money

for
Colombia.


I don't agree. We need to form a combined task force to sweep in and
burn the druggies out.


Yeah. OK, Dave. We'll just sweep right in there. Do you know that opium's
being grown again on a large scale basis in Afghanistan, and we know about
it? As a longtime knowledgable gardener, you know that in many parts of that
country, there's little else that'll grow well enough to be of economic use
to the natives.


So once again, you become the apologist. You'd give them a "pass" on
growing substances which are illegal in most countries, and which bring
nothing but eventual pain and psychological issues to those who use
them, becasue you see no alternative? Maybe in places like Afghanistan,
farming should not be their main commercial product.


You really are a mess. Beginning this weekend, you will begin reading the
Sunday NY Times and Washington Post from beginning to end. And, you'll
listen to both the morning and evening NPR news broadcasts.


If you can prove to me that these are not the left biased propaganda
sources that I know they are, then I might consider it. Otherwise I'll
stick to more credible sources.

Dave



Doug Kanter November 14th 03 07:56 PM

O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
 
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Let me see if I understand: You have herbicides which the manufacturer
honestly says will make people hideously ill if used on food crops. You

use
it anyway, knowing full well that you will sicken your own citizens.

What
message does THAT send? "You have a choice of being killed quickly by
criminals, or killed slowly by your own government. Choose." Is that the
message?


It's better than doing NOTHING.


If you were the president of Colombia, you'd continue poisoning your own
people because it's better than nothing??? I just want to be clear about
what you're saying. Is this correct?




Gee, maybe GWB should send in the next group of troops there huh?


Pretend you're the president. Please describe clearly the reason you'd

give
the American people for such a military action.


To rid the world of deviant thugs who have little respet for law, and
for other people.


Whew. You're really close to the edge now.





I was referring not to the farmers, but to government officials, clergy,
foreign reporters and workers. Are you aware that 3 American civilians

are
still being held hostage down there? I thought you told me that you DO

read
or listen to legitimate news sources. Read the link below. This was on

60
Minutes a month or so ago. The story's been kept sort of quiet because

our
government has some other weird reason for not wanting to move on it.


Maybe because the story is lacking in credibility. There are a lot of
"stories" that make the rounds in the leftist propaganda rags. You may
think the reason that they rarely see the light of day in the mainstream
press, is due to some "vast right wing conspiracy" trying to keep a lid
on it. The more obvious reason could be that they lack truth.


The terrorists permitted one Colombian journalist to film an interview with
the captives. This film was shown on TV here, and a copy was given to our
state department. The captives' families confirmed that it was their
relatives shown in the movie, and the state department positively identified
the person who led the journalist into the jungle as a terrorist leader.

Try again, Dave. It's real. The state department has commented on it
publicly.



Write to your representatives and tell them 30
years is long enough to see that a program doesn't work. No more

money
for
Colombia.

I don't agree. We need to form a combined task force to sweep in and
burn the druggies out.


Yeah. OK, Dave. We'll just sweep right in there. Do you know that

opium's
being grown again on a large scale basis in Afghanistan, and we know

about
it? As a longtime knowledgable gardener, you know that in many parts of

that
country, there's little else that'll grow well enough to be of economic

use
to the natives.


So once again, you become the apologist. You'd give them a "pass" on
growing substances which are illegal in most countries, and which bring
nothing but eventual pain and psychological issues to those who use
them, becasue you see no alternative? Maybe in places like Afghanistan,
farming should not be their main commercial product.


Ooops. You stepped in **** again, Dave. YOUR PRESIDENT is giving Afghanistan
a pass, as are our own military leaders, because they know there's no other
way.



You really are a mess. Beginning this weekend, you will begin reading

the
Sunday NY Times and Washington Post from beginning to end. And, you'll
listen to both the morning and evening NPR news broadcasts.


If you can prove to me that these are not the left biased propaganda
sources that I know they are, then I might consider it. Otherwise I'll
stick to more credible sources.


Please name your credible sources.



Doug Kanter November 14th 03 07:57 PM

O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
 
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...


And like so many other liberals, you'd be wrong.

I'd be right since you didn't answer the question. If you do know her
position then the answer is she doesn't accept the right wing's desire
to control her birth rights.

You'll never admit that because it'd cause your rec.boats world to

come
crashing down around you.

Dave

Doug, he did it again. Didn't answer the question, nor will he ever.


He's afraid to talk to his own wife. That'll blow up in his face when

the
children are grown and out of the house.



Speculating again? You're good at it, if nothing else.

Dave


No, Dave. This is a guarantee. Either she'll leave you, or she'll stick
around, share the retirement money, and have a real man on the side. Someone
who's got the balls to talk to her.




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com