jj@alice.UUCP (05/06/85)
>It has been explicitly stated by the Reagan administration and also >noted to a certain extent by the Press that *one* of the objectives >Reagan wanted out of the Economic Summit was support for his "Start Wars" >program. Indeed the Summit did come out with a lukewarm endorsement of >the "Start Wars" concept except for Francois Mitterand who suggested >that Europe would be better served by the "Eureka" program for *civilian* >research rather than military research. That's fine, Tim, but you wrote your article in a way that reflected on me, rather than Reagan. Go back and read your article, and be more careful, if that's what you meant to say. On a tangent, what do you have to say about Mitterand's refusal to talk about lowering tarrifs? ... >"due to one man". The Holocaust was the product of social forces and not >just one man. It was supported by right-wing anti-semitism and anti-communism Why is it that you insist on linking everything you don't like with "right wing" and "anti-communist"? That's just simply dishonest. You have accused me countless times of being "right wing", but I think you know bloody well I'm not an anti-semite. I also think you have to admit that the USSR is anti-semitic, and isn't right wing... Granted that you have some truth in your statement, but why must you phrase it in a deliberately misleading (and quite offensive) way? ... >What are we doing to move away from a system which spends trillions on >war while hundreds of millions of people are starving? How many of those people are starving because they couldn't muster enough force to hold on to their food, Tim. It's a sad but true point taht you have to grow food, and then hold on to it, too. How about the Israeli airlift, etc, forced march, etc, etc? What good would more food do when the local powers would rather their opposition starve? >I don't recall ever accusing you of being a "total idiot". What I have said Your memory is short. (Sorry, the article's expired... or I'd post it back to you) >is that your articles are long on emotion and short on facts. This Is that my articles are short on facts that you choose to believe. It's no secret that you have a very selective method of deciding "fact", and that "facts" seem not be facts unless you like the implications. >article is yet another example. I cannot accuse you of manipulation or >sophistry as such tactics require at least the attempt to present facts >or seeming facts to buttress an argument. Since you very seldom present >facts (other than your own opinions) I do not think you are manipulative. Again, your memory is short. >> You have also called Reagan (who I'm NOT, remember?) idiotic, >> and you have also accused HIM of the same. Ditto... >> > >Well, what *do* you say about somebody who says "Hardly anyone is alive >to remember World War II" or "Trees pollute" or "There are more forests ... >Do you call such a person a "genius" with magnificent command of >the facts? I think your excerpts show my points. No other comment here. (fascinating that you bring in points not relevent to Bitburg, once you've been out-argued on that point. Why do you want to spread to other issues? Perhaps because you can do that continuously and still appear reasonable? Please take YOURSELF in context, Tim!) >> >> If you MUST spread hate, please don't call it hating for peace. > >I do not hate Ronald Reagan anymore than Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin >or Richard Nixon. I do think that he is a liar and a hypocrite of ... You and I both know that I was not referring to hating RR, we were talking about hating the german people. I didn't accuse you of hating them, but I DID comment that your rhetoric is hardly calculated to encourage friendship in either direction, which I regard as unwise and hatemongering. Your lumping of RR with Hitler is astounding, methinks. (also quite offensive, when you get right down to it) >away the key. To be stripped of power was good enough as far as I was >concerned. The same with Reagan: I wish he would just go back to his >ranch and make Borax commercials and leave us in peace. That's your opinion. Unfortunately, you're so full of emotion that you can't see the good that comes along with the bad. That, it's clear to me, leads you to state everying in a prejudicial and offensive manner, and renders you incapable of seeing opposing viewpoints. In addition, it severely damages your argument, because you raille at every action of the President, and ignore (or loose in the rhetoric) the things that are really bad, and that do represent debatable points. (I can think of lots of things to complain about involving RR, it's interesting that you only go for the ones where you can muster emotion and attempt to sway opinion in a manipulitive fashion. I think you could make much more headway by pointing the many real problems in the Reagan administration.) >Is it an expression of "hate" to point out that Reagan is spending more ... >Mahatma Gandhi said that it is one's duty to oppose evil in every way >possible consistent with truth and nonviolence. I personally think >Reagan and his policies are evil and I will continue to oppose them. Again, your opinion. I think it's evil to allow one's self to become defenseless in the face of forces that would without qualm destroy one's self, given the opportunity. Using the word evil, I think, shows the extent of your prejudice. I don't think that defense should be so expensive, though. That's another issue. The "cost cutting" measures and the GE stuff are less than smokescreens. It is a fact that we have expensive, incompetent weaponry. I do NOT like that fact, and I think it should be remedied. I think that this argument has occupied enough space on the net. Right, Tim? -- DO TEDDY BEARS HAVE OPINIONS? ASK YOURS TODAY! "My mind is clearer now, at last, all too well, I can see, where we all, soon will be.." (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj