![]() |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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