Uncool,
It's debatable whether your lack of word-mastery is responsible
for your lack of support.
Libertarian mayoral candidate Dave says he has a plan to reduce
violent crime and aggression "drastically". Dem mayoral candidate
Steve says he has a plan to reduce violent crime and aggression
"a little bit", and criticizes Dave's plan as too
"all-or-nothing". Question 1: Who should win the election: Dave
or Steve?
Question 2: How does Steve plan to limit his reduction of
violence without supporting that which he refuses to reduce?
Since I can't completely decipher your points (remember my
handicap) about blurbs that assault and judging and demonizing
the viewpoints of different thinkers, I only THINK I disagree
and/or plead "not guilty".
-Mark
************
{American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
"not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
unjust lawsuits.
See www.fija.org
[Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
_____
--- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> It's a rediculous statement, the problem is not getting me to
admit
> that it is as much. The problem, wich I am sure is not yours,
is
> getting Terry to admit that his is similarly rediculous. I
doubt I
> have the mastery of words to convince either of you of that.
>
> One who will accept some now, and work for more later, is not
some
> evil agressor bent on decieving and controlling you. They have
a
> valid point of view that all or nothing is not the best way. In
> practice Terry might understand that, but his constant posting
of
> this little blurb is a constant assault and those with a
different
> point of view. In a very real way it is that inapropriate
personal
> attack that will get your posts moderated though terry is the
> moderator. One who speaks a different point of view, becasue it
is
> there genuine point of view, and asks only to be heard, and
does
not
> judge your differing point of view is NOT an agressor. The same
can
> not be said for one who would demonize he who thinks
differently.
>
> --- In [email protected], "mark robert" <colowe@>
wrote:
> >
> > Assuming you are being serious, where is your evidence of
> > "violation" and "aggression" from those who "promote
unlimited
> > Libertarianism"? If you can't provide any, at least supply a
> > theoretical example of what you are talking about. Or maybe
you
> > didn't write that yourself?
> >
> >
_____
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
