[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A personal attack is bad not because it is false or true but because it seeks to confuse the arguement with the person making the arguement.
Can we add this to our etiquette guidelines? The reasoning behind the rule.
Sonja :o)
GCU: No attack
__
In a message dated 2/1/2004 10:46:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So I'll say it's not relevant to what sort of a person
he is when Mary Jo asks me to, and not before. That
seems fair. It's more of a chance than he gave her.
It just isn't very germaine to the arguement at
> Incidentally, Tom, when do you ever follow that rule?
> Or does it only apply to liberals? Speaking about
> Republicans when you have no knowledge, that's not
> exactly a problem for you, is it?
>
Not sure I can recall the last time I accused anyone of any political stripe
of murder.
Tom B
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 2/1/04 10:46:35 PM,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > God knows what really happened.
> >
>
> Exactly. YOU DON'T know. You weren't there. I wasn't
> there. Stop talking like
> you were.
>
> Tom Beck
Tom, I know what the _most favorable interp
In a message dated 2/1/04 10:46:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> God knows what really happened.
>
Exactly. YOU DON'T know. You weren't there. I wasn't there. Stop talking like
you were.
Tom Beck
www.mercerjewishsingles.org
"I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreame
Folks,
Gautam: >> > Teddy was probably drunk off his ass, or too
>> > busy drowning innocent young women to think
>> > about what he was saying - something like that.
Reggie: >> Personal attacks make for good arguements since when?
>> Maybe you've been working such long hou
- Original Message -
From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
> At 08:23 PM 2/1/04, Reggie Bautista wrote:
>
At 08:23 PM 2/1/04, Reggie Bautista wrote:
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> He's not alone. Ted Kennedy claimed that the Iraq war
> was "cooked up in Texas" for corrupt oil reasons.
> Sending us to war to pay off your buddies would,
> again, be treason in my book - maybe not legally, but
> morally. Teddy
--- Reggie Bautista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Personal attacks make for good arguements since
> when? Maybe you've been
> working such long hours that you've forgotten that
> one of the principles of
> this list is to attack the argument, not the person
> who made it. Tell us
> why Ted Kennedy
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> He's not alone. Ted Kennedy claimed that the Iraq war
> was "cooked up in Texas" for corrupt oil reasons.
> Sending us to war to pay off your buddies would,
> again, be treason in my book - maybe not legally, but
> morally. Teddy was probably drunk off his ass, or too
> bu
At 07:20 PM 1/31/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quadifi is an ecomaniac
I would have thought that description would better fit Al Gore . . .
;-)
-- Ronn! :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
In a message dated 1/29/2004 9:50:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Maybe. If so he is fairly unique among dictators.
> Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, to pick two, are
> unlikely to have been influenced by access to the
> world economy. And if that had really been enoug
In a message dated 1/29/2004 9:50:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Maybe. If so he is fairly unique among dictators.
> Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, to pick two, are
> unlikely to have been influenced by access to the
> world economy. And if that had really been enoug
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 1/28/2004 11:39:15 PM Eastern
> Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > In all seriousness, I still don't get it. Other
> than
> > such displays of force, what do you think a
> Qaddafi
> > would respond to? As far as I can tell, _nothing_
In a message dated 1/28/2004 11:39:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> In all seriousness, I still don't get it. Other than
> such displays of force, what do you think a Qaddafi
> would respond to? As far as I can tell, _nothing_
> except force is likely to get results from
In a message dated 1/28/2004 10:26:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> And of course, all those years of negotiation going back to the Clinton
> Administration just happened to break through at the same time that Hussein
> was being toppled.And indeed, coincidentally at t
In a message dated 1/28/2004 9:14:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> Maybe. But since Qaddafi said to Berlusconi "I will
> do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what
> happened in Iraq and I am afraid" it seems like
> there's a more plausible explanation.
>
> I swe
> There were a number of young men in the South who fought for the
> Confederacy not because they were trying to defend slavery, but because
> they felt allegiance to their states before their country. While the
> simplistic interpretation, and maybe the most correct one, of the Civil
> War was th
> In all seriousness, I still don't get it. Other than
> such displays of force, what do you think a Qaddafi
> would respond to? As far as I can tell, _nothing_
> except force is likely to get results from someone
> like him.
>
There have been stories that he also responded to such things as hi
Doug Pensinger wrote:
>
> Julia wrote:
>
> > (and ask me about what I know about the aftermath of Gettysburg any time
> > you like)
>
> Consider yourself asked. 8^)
After the battle, there were a lot of men left lying for dead.
A group of Quakers came though with wagons, and checked each man.
Dan wrote:
Since Bush is trying to keep what happened before as secret as possible,
even from people who have the security clearance to look at the material,
it raises the possibility that the answer is closer to 2 than 3. My own
guess is that its at the level where a Monday morning quarterback
Julia wrote:
At the risk of irritating an awful lot of people --
There were a number of young men in the South who fought for the
Confederacy not because they were trying to defend slavery, but because
they felt allegiance to their states before their country. While the
simplistic interpretatio
--- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > I swear, Bob, if President Bush walked across the
> > Potomac you'd declare it was proof that he
> couldn't swim.
> >
>
> Stealing lines from LBJ?
> How far the mighty have fallen!
>
>
>
> xponent
> Good One Though Maru
> rob
"Talent creates,
--- "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you're probably right. I don't think that
> this sort of display of force is a great long-term
> solution; we shouldn't ever count on such side
> benefits.
> -j-
Well, why not? One of the major reasons for doing
this was such a "side be
"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
>
> At 08:15 PM 1/28/2004 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >In a message dated 1/27/2004 11:56:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> >> As for the Libyan situation, I do not believe that it was a coincidence
> >> that after years of stalemate the i
At 08:15 PM 1/28/2004 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In a message dated 1/27/2004 11:56:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> As for the Libyan situation, I do not believe that it was a coincidence
>> that after years of stalemate the ice in Libya began to
>> breakas Saddam
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 06:14 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
>
>
> --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
- Original Message -
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
> I swear, Bob, if President Bush walked across the
&
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Recent op ed piece in the NYT by a former bush
> appointee argued quite explicitly that the thaw with
> Libya began well before the invasion (beginning with
> initiatives during the Clinton administration)and it
> was the result of prolonged diplomatic efforts. He
>
In a message dated 1/27/2004 11:56:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> As for the Libyan situation, I do not believe that it was a coincidence
> that after years of stalemate the ice in Libya began to
> breakas Saddam
> Hussein was being toppled.
>
>Recent op ed piece in th
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>
> --- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Gautam, you make my case for me. Instead of
> > sticking to the argument, you
> > make it personal, just like the people who's loyalty
> > is questioned when
> > they don't toe the Republican line in regards to
> > 9/11.
- Original Message -
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7:58 PM
Subject: RE: Doing Business With The Enemy
> --- "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PRO
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John D. Giorgis
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 08:57 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: RE: Doing Business With The Enemy
>
>
> At 11:00 AM 1/27/2004 -0800 Mi
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 08:48:52AM -0600, Dan Minett
> From: Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> morally. Teddy was probably drunk off his ass, or too
> busy drowning innocent young women to think about what
> he was saying - something like that.
Ad hominems, straw men. We can also bring up, Cheney and Shrubs Numerous
DWI's or Laura Shrubs man
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 08:48:52AM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
> Sure. It is a small, rugged pulsed neutron generator. It generates
> about 10^8 neutrons per second, with energies of 14 Mev in very short
> (measured in microseconds) bursts.
Thanks. Sounds pretty obvious that it is for a nuclear w
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 4:52 AM
Subject: Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
> Could you explain what a "nuclear bomb trigger&
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 11:45:58PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
> I'll give one clear example of Halliburton behaving in an unpatriotic
> manner under Clinton. I've seen, from reputable sources, that they
> sold nuclear bomb triggers to Hussein, using their French subsidy
> to make it technically le
Gautam wrote:
Because, of course, it is personal.
No, it's not. Not on this end anyway.
I supported the invasion, and not for oil money either. Your
insistence that only corruption or malice explains the
actions of the Administration
I may have intoned that there is the possibility that corrupt
John wrote:
You cannot plausibly hold both positions. If you hold to the opinions
of your second paragraph, then these activities were just as
reprehensible
under Clinton as under Bush, because it was still the breaking of a law,
even a bad law.
I'm arguing that the way laws are enforced, say
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gautam, you make my case for me. Instead of
> sticking to the argument, you
> make it personal, just like the people who's loyalty
> is questioned when
> they don't toe the Republican line in regards to
> 9/11.
>
> --
> Doug
Because, of course,
--
> It is not at all clear to me what the spirit of a law that provides an
> exception for offshore subsidiaries is supposed to be. I guess that it
> could be sorted out in Court, but Clinton seemed strangely uninterested
in
> pursuing these cases - isn't that just as reprehensible in your mind
At 11:00 AM 1/27/2004 -0800 Miller, Jeffrey wrote:
>> 2) Do you truly believe that the United States should have complete
>> economic sanctions against the Iran, Syria, and Libya?
>
>John, I don't recall - are you for or against economic sanctions as a form
of power?
> Do you have a read on the ef
Gautam wrote:
You don't think that claiming the President knew
something like that in advance was despicable?
Why don't you tell me, Guatam, why the administration has stonewalled the
investigation into the causes of 9/11 and why people _shouldn't_ assume
that someone that's hiding something mig
At 04:16 PM 1/27/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>John wrote:
>
>> 1) Given that the practices described below almost certainly have been
>> unchanged since the days of the Clinton Administration,
>
>Before we were at "war" and peoples patriotism was questioned at the drop
>of a hat by the curren
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>
> --- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Geez, ya let one girl die from drowning in your car
> > and you're branded
> > for life.
> > Julia
>
> I am not, I should say, in any way a Kennedy hater.
> My first political campaign was for Mark _Kennedy_
> Shriv
In a message dated 1/27/2004 8:26:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> So, tell me, Doug, if you searched the entire
> collected speeches of George Bush, would you find the
> word unpatriotic even once?
Come on Gautam can you please refrain from empty retorical devices. That
In a message dated 1/27/2004 8:26:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> So, tell me, Doug, if you searched the entire
> collected speeches of George Bush, would you find the
> word unpatriotic even once?
Come on Gautam can you please refrain from empty retorical devices. That
--- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Geez, ya let one girl die from drowning in your car
> and you're branded
> for life.
> Julia
I am not, I should say, in any way a Kennedy hater.
My first political campaign was for Mark _Kennedy_
Shriver. Ted's career makes him one of the mos
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> He's not alone. Ted Kennedy claimed that the Iraq war
> was "cooked up in Texas" for corrupt oil reasons.
> Sending us to war to pay off your buddies would,
> again, be treason in my book - maybe not legally, but
> morally. Teddy was probably drunk off his ass, or too
> b
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So we can infer high treason from the above remarks
> but we can't infer
> that the Bush administration is playing the
> patriotism card unless Bush
> uses the word "unpatriotic" in a speech?
>
> --
> Doug
You don't think that claiming the Presid
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
He suggested that "the most interesting theory" about
9/11 was that President Bush was warned in advance
about it by the Saudis. He claimed not to believe it
- but bringing it up as "the most interesting theory"
clearly attaches some credence to it. Knowing about
9/11 in ad
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:26:54 -0800 (PST), Gautam Mukunda
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Before we were at "war" and peoples patriotism was
questioned at the drop
of a hat by the current administration you mean?
So, tell me, Doug, if you searched the entire
collected speeches of George Bush, would yo
--- "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did he? When did he do that?
>
> -j-
He suggested that "the most interesting theory" about
9/11 was that President Bush was warned in advance
about it by the Saudis. He claimed not to believe it
- but bringing it up as "the most interesting the
> Howard Dean
> accused the President of the United States in a time
> of war of high treason.
>
> So which party is questioning people's patriotism again?
Did he? When did he do that?
-j-
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John wrote:
>
> > 1) Given that the practices described below almost
> certainly have been
> > unchanged since the days of the Clinton
> Administration,
>
> Before we were at "war" and peoples patriotism was
> questioned at the drop
> of a hat by t
John wrote:
1) Given that the practices described below almost certainly have been
unchanged since the days of the Clinton Administration,
Before we were at "war" and peoples patriotism was questioned at the drop
of a hat by the current administration you mean?
how do you explain your above sta
> 2) Do you truly believe that the United States should have complete
> economic sanctions against the Iran, Syria, and Libya?
John, I don't recall - are you for or against economic sanctions as a form of power?
Do you have a read on the effectiveness of them, given the recent Lybian Surprise?
At 11:45 PM 1/26/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>It's all OK for [President Bush's] buddies...
Two questions for you Doug.
1) Given that the practices described below almost certainly have been
unchanged since the days of the Clinton Administration, how do you explain
your above statement in th
nally government ties...
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 11:45:49PM -0800, Doug Pensinger wrote:
> It's all OK for Bushies buddies...
>
>
> Doing Business With The Enemy
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/22/60minutes/main595214.shtml
>
___
It's all OK for Bushies buddies...
Doing Business With The Enemy
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/22/60minutes/main595214.shtml
(CBS) Did it ever occur to you that when President Bush says, "Money is
the lifeblood of terrorist operations," he's talking about your money
61 matches
Mail list logo
