A Voice of Reason Rises Above the Hysteria

[Scipio Centaurus]

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.

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

[Imran Siddiqui]

SC: For some reason, n.c. seems to have a BIG chip on his shoulder about Libertarians. He seems to think that most of them are narrow-minded and dogmatic (from what I can see from his posts).

As you can see, other have condemned his throwing around of insults, so best to ignore him.

[David Floyd]

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

So much for trying to interject a joke

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
n.c. seems to have a BIG chip on his shoulder about Libertarians.

If that's true the chip on your shoulder about me must re-define gigantic (thus your immediate appearance wherever someone is mad at me). That said, it isn't true. I'd explain why but it's unlikely you'd listen.

-"think that most of them are narrow-minded and dogmatic"
If by "most" you mean Rep. Paul and one or two people here, then yes. The others I know don't fit that description. Hate to disappoint you.

-"other have condemned his throwing around of insults"
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.

-"so best to ignore him."
Now that he realizes I was not necessarily talking about him or supporting the war he is trying very hard to do just that.

berz- I totally missed this the 1st time around:

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".

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.

[Scipio Centaurus]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
SC: For some reason, n.c. seems to have a BIG chip on his shoulder about Libertarians. He seems to think that most of them are narrow-minded and dogmatic (from what I can see from his posts).

As you can see, other have condemned his throwing around of insults, so best to ignore him.

I'll generally give anyone 3 chances to stop making personal insults about me before putting them on IGNORE status. It just simply becomes a waste of time to have further discourse with people, if they're going to lead off every message with a personal insult directed at you.

I've only got one person on IGNORE right now and it isn't NC. I actually haven't counted anything he's said as a personal insult so far. He just hasn't said anything recently, that I deem worthy of response.

- Scipio

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Scipio Centaurus
I actually haven't counted anything he's said as a personal insult so far.

The very few you've made are well within reason. There would be a lot more than one person on my ignore list if I used the 3 times rule.

-"that I deem worthy of response."
You meant to say "for which I have a resopnse."

[DinoDoc]

This thread appears to have lost its focus and has deginerated into a grudge match. Can we have an adult conversation or is all hope gone for this thread already?

[Richard Bruns]

Originally posted by n.c.
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.

I did not say or even imply that he is a "fool".

Generally, "fool" is a synonym for a narrow-minded dogmatic person who is incapable of making logical connections. You sort of implied that all libertarians are narrow-minded dogmatic people who are incapable of making logical connections, i.e. fools.

There is a reason why it is the business for those of us who are human. Think about it.

That sort of started a shouting match. Everyone's equally culpable, but in their case I didn't expect much better. n.c., you are on my short list of respectable posters so I didn't expect you to fall into the trap of mud-flinging.

And by the way, welcome back.

[David Floyd]

Funny thing is, that comment about being human was directed at me, and it was other people who responded with more flames

[Scipio Centaurus]

Nice to know you've got an army of defenders at your beck and call isn't it, DF?



- Scipio

BTW, is that a real dialog from "Jeopardy" in your sig block? Too funny!

[David Floyd]

Scipio - No...that's from Saturday Night Live!

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Richard Bruns
Generally, "fool" is a synonym for a narrow-minded dogmatic person who is incapable of making logical connections.

That is a far more grandiose definition for the word than I have ever contemplated (and apparently the world is full of fools).

-"I didn't expect you to fall into the trap of mud-flinging."
And don't really see that I did, but apparently a few others took it that way.

-"welcome back."
Why thank you.

DF- "that comment about being human was directed at me"
Which is part of the explanation: I know that extreme bluntness (is that a word?) is not a problem for you.

[David Floyd]

Which is part of the explanation: I know that extreme bluntness (is that a word?) is not a problem for you.

Indeed not. I can dish it out and I can take it - those who dish it out but whine about taking it are dip****s in my opinion

[Natan]

Dino Doc: Hope is lost, but for the record, I agree with you.

[Berzerker]

nc -

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.

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.

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.

-"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.

-"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:

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:

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.

-"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.

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.

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.

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"?

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 -

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.