[Libertarian] Re: Yet more progress in Iraq; Libertarians silent

Tue, 25 Apr 2006 06:13:29 -0700

Mark, you are right.  Although we disagree, there is never any excuse
for directing that kind of language towards anyone.  I sincerely
apologize.  Please see the other 2 posts by kidlebee and hrearden (I
think), in response. 

WG

--- In [email protected], "mark robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Calling me a wiseass is an ad hominem violation here and is off
> topic. Take it back or you will likely risk probation/expulsion.
>
> I answered your question earlier:
> "more of the same and worse".
> You simply deny the answer, and the logic.
>
> -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.] }
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of wgilbert02
> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 3:46 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Yet more progress in Iraq;
> Libertarians silent
>
> All i've asked is for your opinion as to what would happen if we
> pulled out.  You either can't answer or won't, I really don't
> know. 
> No one here has answered this qustion.  All I get is a bunch of
> theoretical BS about the illegitemacy of the war.  OK.  What is
> the
> solution.  Everyone here says PULL OUT.  OK, what happens then.
> How
> do you think it will affect us, our perception worldwide, our
> military preparedness in the region, etc.  You don't have to
> become
> a condescending wiseass and look up the libertarian 'rule book'
> to
> answer a practical situational question with a theoretical
> argument,
> just because someone has a disagreement with you.
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "mark robert" <colowe@>
> wrote:
> >
> > If you agree with "everything I said", why are you asking?
> >
> > How can the consequences of continuing abuse/aggression be
> > anything but continued abuse/aggression - AND MORE HARM? If you
> > mess up and cause a problem, you don't solve it by continuing
> the
> > mistake. A solution does not usually consist of continuing the
> > problem. A solution usually consists of something quite
> > different. A solution usually consists of solving the problem.
> > Solving the problem usually consists of stopping the problem.
> > Stopping the problem is not usually accomplished by not
> stopping
> > the problem. (Redundant, yes; but apparently necessary.)
> >
> > Your questioning of such obvious fundamentals implies you don't
> > agree. So the more efficient conversation would center around
> > this: What do YOU think would happen after a pull-out and why
> > would (any of) it be a reason to stay?
> >
> > If you are expecting to find some excuse for staying, asking
> > others to describe/predict all the specific kinds of harm that
> > will likely continue after a pull out is an exercise in
> futility;
> > you won't find one. Whatever the list of specific harms may be,
> > it would likely only consist of "more of the same and worse"
> and
> > would only serve as a basis for pulling out. Any "basis" for
> > staying that I have heard consists of circular reasoning: "we
> > should stay because we are there".
> >
> > -Mark
> >
>






ForumWebSiteAt  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian



SPONSORED LINKS
Libertarian English language Political parties
Online dictionary American politics

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



Reply via email to