 |
| |
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
MtG:
You think the level of the Taliban's repression, if the US retaliation didn't happen, would be the same as it is now? It would start locking up international aid workers if 9/11 didn't happen?
Have you made some kind of function? How would things like the ethnic cleansing in Mazar al-Sharif figure into it? You think the conditions have escalated from genocide?
edit: Just making it perfectly clear who I'm talking to.
Last edited by Ramo on 01-12-2001 at 11:45
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Scipio Centaurus
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by n.c.
Scipio Centaurus- You have no idea who the fvck I am |
Nor do I care...
Sure I do. You just posted your thoughts on an open forum. 
quote:
-"Anyone who disagrees with me on this issue, must be a narrow-minded statist."
Did I miss anything? |
Wouldn't be the first time, would it?
quote:
-"a result of periods of deep introspection."
Retrospect that you don't know anything about my viewpoint. |
I'm afraid I do, since you just posted your viewpoint. Or were you trying to bait us with misleading statements?
quote:
-"Try to think outside of the box for a change."
Try to not doge my point. |
You stated "Only a libertarian can point out how ...blah...blah...blah. I suppose strictly narrow-minded dogma has always been a barrier to logical connections"
I'm a Libertarian [Capitalize that when you write it]. You just accused me of not being able to think. Was there some other point? Or were you just trying to convince everyone that you're emotionally retarded. It's working, BTW.
quote:
-"they would have simply clouded the salient points of Ron Paul's speech."
That we are overly dependant on foreign oil? Yeah, those two points are inconvenient, oops, not sufficiently related. |
So you read that entire speech and concluded that Paul is trying to tell us we're too dependent on foreign oil? 'fraid I can be of no assistance to you there.
quote:
-"Focus."
Or are we thinking outside of the box? I realize it's hard to to be consistent while trying to patronize, but do try. |
Irrelevant, as best I can tell...
quote:
-"don't disturb the rest of us who aren't interested"
Sorry to bother you with others starvation. Did this degree of caring and compassion come from one of your periods of deep introspection? |
Oh I see. Anyone who doesn't think the way you think and emote the way you emote, is a flawed human being? Sorry, I'm not buying it.
I just don't feel like butchering innocent people to achieve my own grandiose purposes for the rest of the human race. How about you? Would you trade the lives of a few thousand here and there in the name of humanity or religion?
quote:
-"your latest holy crusade"
Wow, this is my crusade! Cool! Amazing, since I never asked for it or even expressed support. Apparently saying that we should be concerned about others' stavation is a blanket endorsement of Bush's foreign policy. |
Bush's foreign policy? I wasn't aware that Bush had a foreign policy - other than intimidation. If you don't like the idea of people starving, then by all means, get up off your a$$ and go feed them - instead of pissing and moaning about it here.
You really must develop a thicker skin if your going to participate in open debate. I suggest you pretend you're a Democrat and listen to Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. That'll toughen you up in no time!
- ScipittyO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
Ramo, I'm a Libertarian, but one who also believes in things such as national sovereignty. Additionally, I'm opposed to the part of Libertarianism that advocates totally open borders for anyone.
n.c.,
Well, OK, so I have learned a bit about that sort of thing. I'll admit that you were probably right 
quote:
That is one of the scariest quotes I've seen on Apolyton. How is it that you are also a nice, polite guy? |
Thanks, I think
Seriously, my beliefs are sorta scary - that's why I'd never let my friends or, worse, any girlfriend see Apolyton, they'd probably run screaming. I assure you I don't go around spouting that in real life - I WANT friends, you see 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
Victor - quote:
gun control can wait until this threat to civil liberties has passed. I'm decidedly worried that the US will become a police state before too long. |
Owning a gun is not a civil liberty? And just how do you propose to get the guns from millions of Americans (and keep them away in the future) without a police state?
quote:
I support reasonable exchanges of liberty for security, not mass surrender of civil liberties that don't return **** in terms of security. |
Gee, do we all get to throw out a few rights/freedoms whenever each of us decides it's a reasonable exchange? Or did you make this statement believing only you will get to make these decisions?
And you don't think the private ownership of guns creates a "return" in terms of security? Then why are so many genocides preceded by this "exchange" of liberty (gun ownership) for security (banning guns)?
quote:
I'm not pro-civil liberties. I'm anti-stupidity. Surrendering a mass of civil liberties is stupid. Hence my opposition. |
Disarm the general population and you take the first step toward surrendering all civil liberties. But if we all got to do what you are claiming for yourself - the authority to surrender rights you don't care for - then we'd be surrendering "a mass of civil liberties".
nc - quote:
Only a libertarian can point out how the war (and foreign policy in general) is overly influenced by oil and not mention alternative energy or conservation. I suppose strictly narrow-minded dogma has always been a barrier to logical connections |
Maybe Mr. Paul doesn't believe it's the government's role to develop alternative fuel sources or impose "conservation" on us, those are leftist ideas - central planners. I'm sure he wouldn't want the government to make it illegal for you to invent other fuel sources or make a conscience effort to use less water. Besides, his speech was about the war, not about electric cars and turning down the lights. Or did you miss that "logical connection"?
quote:
There is a reason why it is the business for those of us who are human. Think about it |
So you would force other human beings to pay for and die fighting this/your war so others won't starve and anyone who doesn't support your endeavor is not human? Yeah, others must go and die in a war half way around the world because you are "human".
quote:
Wow, this is my crusade! Cool! |
Good comeback. I'd characterize a desire to force others to die for your "morality" as a crusade.
quote:
Scipio Centaurus- You have no idea who the fvck I am or what I think |
You're an a$$hole.
quote:
That we are overly dependant on foreign oil? Yeah, those two points are inconvenient, oops, not sufficiently related. |
I'm sure Mr Paul supports drilling in Anwar and coastal areas as well as nuclear power, do you? If not, then stop complaining about him not mentioning alternative sources of oil/power. But if he started talking about these things, some liberal (maybe even you) would have complained that he was using this current situation to push his capitalist agenda to benefit big business.
quote:
Sorry to bother you with others starvation. Did this degree of caring and compassion come from one of your periods of deep introspection? |
Maybe it was one of those periods of deep introspection that led Scipio to the realization that "caring and compassion" doesn't include using violence or the threat thereof to force others to die for his causes. If you care so much, why are you sitting at a computer instead of heading to Afghanistan to help?
quote:
Amazing, since I never asked for it or even expressed support. Apparently saying that we should be concerned about others' stavation is a blanket endorsement of Bush's foreign policy. |
No one ever said you supported Bush's "blanket policy", only that you supported a war to get rid of the Taliban and to feed the Afghans. Let me see if I can remember your exact words from a previous thread: "Some enemies are worth having".
Ramo - quote:
Why is it wrong? A state doesn't have rights, people have rights |
It's wrong because you and I don't have the right to force other people to fight wars we might like.
quote:
The rights of the people trump the rights of the state. How can you be a libertarian and disagree? |
You have the right to not fight my fights. The fight must precede or coincide with the food deliveries over there, and we wouldn't be having this discussion about starvation if not for the terrorist' attacks and "our" response.
quote:
Among other reasons, our bombs are what have caused the Taliban to repress civil liberties so much these past months, exacerberating the problem by quite a bit. |
Huh? We've been bombing for less than a month and as we have bombed and the NA has taken ground, fewer Afghans are under the Taliban's rules. Hell, the Taliban is almost destroyed as far as their ability to repress anyone.
Scipio - quote:
"Anyone who disagrees with me on this issue, must solve all of the worlds problems before attempting to voice dissent." |
quote:
The discussion of alternative energy and conservation are subjects deserving of debate in their own right, but they would have simply clouded the salient points of Ron Paul's speech. Focus. |
NC would rather expose his nastiness by taking another cheap shot at a libertarian. Notice how he didn't complain about what was in the speech, rather what he felt should have been in the speech?
quote:
Then solve it in a humane and business-like fashion, so you don't disturb the rest of us who aren't interested in being dragged along on your latest holy crusade that will cost thousands of innocents their lives. |
But we wouldn't be "human" if we didn't send others to their death.
quote:
Sure I do. You just posted your thoughts on an open forum |
quote:
I'm afraid I do, since you just posted your viewpoint. Or were you trying to bait us with misleading statements? |
Funny that you would have to point out these logical connections to someone who accused Mr Paul/libertarians of being to stupid to see them. Very nice job Hope you hang around...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
n.c.
|
 |
North Carolina, best state in the union
Jul 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scipio Centaurus
Nor do I care... |
You cared enough to comment (but apparently not enough to defend those comments).
-"You just posted your thoughts on an open forum."
-"I'm afraid I do, since you just posted your viewpoint."
And you inaccurately characterized me as a result.
-"Wouldn't be the first time, would it?"
For what? Your being wrong about something? I'm certain that it is not.
-"Or were you trying to bait us with misleading statements?"
That would be you.
-"You just accused me of not being able to think."
So your libertarianism has made you as narrow-minded and dogmatic as Rep. Paul? Too bad. (Or perhaps you didn't actually catch the context of my comments? Oops!)
-"you're emotionally retarded. It's working, BTW."
More name-calling. The pathetic cry of the defeated.
-"Paul is trying to tell us we're too dependent on foreign oil?"
So it was no part of his comments? Interesting.
-"Irrelevant, as best I can tell..."
Nope, just you being wrong again.
-"is a flawed human being?"
Well, if that's how you want to describe people who don't care about others' starvation I won't make much effort to debate you. I would have said callous, but the two descriptions are arguably similar.
-"Would you trade the lives of a few thousand . . . ."
Try asking a non-loaded, specific question and I will try to answer.
-"I wasn't aware that Bush had a foreign policy - other than intimidation."
I almost agree with that statement.
-"instead of pissing and moaning about it here."
More of you knowing all about who I am and what I do. Amazing.
-"You really must develop a thicker skin"
This from the guy who personally attacked me for critisizing a congressman.
I know you like to think of yourself as a thoughtful adult, and you are making good progress. Just don't think you are there yet.
DF- "Thanks, I think"
Well, it was at least 1/2 a compliment.
Berz- "did you miss that 'logical connection'?"
I saw one that appartently others did not.
-"others must go and die in a war half way around the world"
-"Good comeback."
-"doesn't include using violence or the threat thereof"
-"if we didn't send others to their death"
Look, all I said was that people should care about others' starving. You and SC have taken that radical notion and assumed that I want to take all types of action. Please stick to what I actually said.
-"not mentioning alternative sources of oil/power"
He can say whatever he likes. I just think that someone with a less dogmatic view would have said more.
-"some liberal (maybe even you) would have complained"
Are you suggesting he would care what we liberal say and adusted his comments accordingly?
-"expose his nastiness"
That's ironic coming from you.
-"Notice how he didn't complain about what was in the speech"
I actually support a lot of what was in the speech. Had I know how sensitive you guys are I would have started out with a few examples. I'll try to be more careful about your feelings in the future.
DinoDoc- Now you've stepped in it. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Scipio Centaurus
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hans2
If you cannot openly discuss your political opinions among your friends and family without fear of alienating them perhaps you should re-examine your beliefs. |
Or perhaps you should re-examine your friends and family?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richard Bruns
|
|
NC, USA
Nov 1999
time: 06:16
|
|
I read the entire speech, and with one exception, I agree with everything in there. I would definitely recommend it. Even if you do not agree with it, it is a very articulate and thorough defense of the libertarian viewpoint as it applies to the current situation, and well worth your time. A lot of these points mirror what many on Apolyton have been saying for a long time. The only way that the terrorists can truly win is to goad us into outbursts of blind rage and cause our government to erase civil liberties.
However, his presumption that we entered into this war to build an oil pipeline is simply foolish. The amount of oil from such a pipeline would be negligible. National security planners wouldn't put this much effort into it. As for oil companies, they have very little power. The idea of them dictating policy such as this is laughable. If they were really these all-powerful entities with secret plans rivalling the Iluuminati's, why can't they manage to build a few wells in Alaska?
The current administration's policy has been to reduce dependence on foreign oil and develop domestic production from places like ANWAR. If you truly believe that this war was fought to obtain oil, you must blame the opponents of ANWAR drilling for forcing us to get oil from abroad.
Also remember that the USA only gets about 10% of its oil from the Middle East, while Europe gets almost all of its oil from there. If all this was about oil, why isn't Europe fighting more than we are?
I am very curious about the comments about reinstating the draft. I have not heard of anyone, anywhere seriously recommending it. Yet the speaker feels compelled to argue against people who support it. Has anyone else heard of someone truly supporting the draft?
Now a few minor points:
"After all, someone middle aged owes a lot more to his country than an 18-year old." Gotta love that line. I must remember it.
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
I didn't support the start of the war principally because there wasn't a viable alternative. After all, the NA is nothing more than a bunch of murdering thugs, marginally better than the Taliban. |
Actually, the northern alliance is and always has been the government of Afghanistan that was officially recognised by the United Nations. The USA was not making a unilateral decision in supporting them; we were acting in accordance to official UN policy.
n.c., what happened to the intelligent and mature debator that used to be on Apolyton? First you call the speaker a narrow-minded fool for not adding irrelevent material in his speech, and then you toss insults about at random. I miss the person who was so coherent and articulate in threads like the affirmative action debate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Scipio Centaurus
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Bruns
I am very curious about the comments about reinstating the draft. I have not heard of anyone, anywhere seriously recommending it. Yet the speaker feels compelled to argue against people who support it. Has anyone else heard of someone truly supporting the draft? |
I first heard mention of a reinstatement of a draft on the "Hardball" TV program [I think] in conjunction with a speech GW was going to give later in the day - the "What can I do?" speech in late September or October. I do not remember seeing it mentioned in the mainstream media, though.
The concept did not make it into the speech, of course, but it is my understanding that it was in early speech drafts. I have not heard serious discussion of this since that time, but I would be willing to bet that Rep. Paul's sources are a hell of a lot better than mine.
quote:
Actually, the northern alliance is and always has been the government of Afghanistan that was officially recognised by the United Nations. The USA was not making a unilateral decision in supporting them; we were acting in accordance to official UN policy. |
You may rest assured that we support the NA because it is expedient for us and for no other reason. Any appearance that our actions are in accord with the UN is purely coincidental. If at some later point point the NA becomes a liability to us, our support of them will cease immediately, without consultation with the UN.
- Scipio
Last edited by Scipio Centaurus on 02-12-2001 at 05:13
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
Scipio - No...that's from Saturday Night Live!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
nc - quote:
Berz- "did you miss that 'logical connection'?"
I saw one that appartently others did not. |
And how would you have reacted had Paul started talking about domestic drilling for oil, nuclear power, and every other bugaboo on the left's environmental agenda? If he had gone off on this tangent he would have been criticized by many liberals for using the war to push a political agenda. And you're criticizing him for not pushing your political agenda. In other words, he's damned if he does, and he's damned if he doesn't. He was better off keeping his speech focused on the immediate situation rather than rambling on about other matters even if people like you would use him to take another shot at libertarians.
quote:
Look, all I said was that people should care about others' starving. You and SC have taken that radical notion and assumed that I want to take all types of action. Please stick to what I actually said. |
I am sticking to what you've said. You have taken the position that others should be forced to pay for, fight, and possibly die to stop potential starvation. I understand the context in which David made his comment about not caring if people starve. By claiming it isn't our business, he is claiming that he lacks the authority to force his fellow Americans to sacrifice their time/lives to stop starvation in Afghanistan.
quote:
He can say whatever he likes. I just think that someone with a less dogmatic view would have said more. |
No one accused you of trying to prevent him from speaking his mind. And have you ever made a post that did not address every possible connection to the subject matter? Of course you have! You did it in this thread when you ignored domestic drilling as part of a program to reduce dependence on foreign oil.
quote:
-"some liberal (maybe even you) would have complained"
Are you suggesting he would care what we liberal say and adusted his comments accordingly? |
I'm "suggesting" that he would have been criticized by some liberals if he had used his speech about civil liberties and the war to push for domestic drilling and nuclear power. I hear this criticism constantly whenever Bush argues for drilling in Anwar much less expanding nuclear power.
quote:
-"expose his nastiness"
That's ironic coming from you. |
You were the one who entered this thread with the following insult before anyone said anything about you:
quote:
Only a libertarian can point out how the war (and foreign policy in general) is overly influenced by oil and not mention alternative energy or conservation. I suppose strictly narrow-minded dogma has always been a barrier to logical connections. |
You used his omission of your political agenda to launch a blanket condemnation of all libertarians. You then added this in the same post:
quote:
There is a reason why it is the business for those of us who are human. Think about it |
You accused people of being inhuman for not supporting your desire to force others to pay for and fight (and die) in your war to get rid of the Taliban - a war that happens to be the primary cause of any starvation.
quote:
-"Notice how he didn't complain about what was in the speech"
I actually support a lot of what was in the speech. Had I know how sensitive you guys are I would have started out with a few examples. I'll try to be more careful about your feelings in the future. |
Then why didn't you say so instead of grabbing onto something he didn't mention? And spare us this hypocrisy about sensitivity! You insulted people and accused them of being "sensitive" for responding. And you had your chance to "start" out with a few examples, but used your opening post to insult libertarians instead.
quote:
Yes I think some strident libertarians are narrow-minded and dogmatic. Why is that so terrible? |
You didn't say some libertarians are narrow-minded and dogmatic - a charge that can be made about some adherents to every ideology.
quote:
Seeing as how I had stopped posting in August I doubt this was in support of the action in Afganistan. I'm sure you'll explain if that's wrong. |
So I am to remain silent and not make corrections to your false statements? Yes nc, we debated the Taliban after Sept 11.
quote:
Tell me, who said the following:
-"narrow-minded statist"
-"Try to think outside of the box"
-"your latest holy crusade"
-"you're emotionally retarded"
-"You're an a$$hole."
Oh, and can you tell the difference between comments directed at public figures and posters? If so maybe you can explain it to SC. |
Weren't these all made after you wrote your first post accusing libertarians of being narrow-minded and dogmatic and inhuman for not supporting your agenda?
Has simple chronology become a lost "art"?
quote:
DinoDoc- Now you've stepped in it. |
Unlike you, DinoDoc did not enter this thread to start a flame war by insulting people. Geez you're clueless sometimes...
DinoDoc - quote:
Berzerker, et al.: We are, sadly, going to be forced to have some limted involvement in this region after the conflict is over in order to keep it from sliding into the morass of anarchy that allowed the conditions for the rise of the Taliban from happening again. I'm not happy about it but that is the way I see the situation. |
The situation in Afghanistan was far from anarchy. The Taliban were autocrats, not anarchists. And it was not their autocratic ideology that led to this situation, it was the terrorist attack carried out primarily by Saudis who may or may not have been living in Afghanistan at some point in the past. Obviously some members of the Taliban are complicit in what happened since they harbored one of bin Laden's bases of operations, but the extent of that complicity is still unknown to most of us. I don't have a big problem with removing the Taliban, I do have a problem with forcing other people to pay for and fight this war. I know we currently have a volunteer force, but they took an oath to uphold the Constitution and that Constitution says the Congress has the power to declare war, not the President. And these terrorist attacks did not happen because bin Laden hates "freedom" as has been claimed by Bush et al, they happened because the Democrats and Republicans support dictatorships in the Middle/Near East and what millions of Arabs and non-Arabs consider an occupying force in Israel along with other policies that we here in the US would condemn if done to us by Arabs.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-12-2001 10:40
|