[lbo-talk] Let Ralph Debate in 2004

[Joseph Wanzala]

You are either being deliberately disingenous or you have not been following 
this thread. Further you have for some inexpolicable reason extracted one 
sentence out of a long paragraph and falsely presented it as my entire 
'argument'. I'm sorry but you are being exeedingly foolish. This statement 
was part of a counterpoint to a specfic exchange, not a spontaneous one 
sentence 'argument to the list and I in fact reached a clear understanding 
with my interlocutor so please take your foolishness elsewhere.

Joe W.


>From: Jon Johanning <jjohanning at igc.org>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Let Ralph Debate in 2004
>Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:54:32 -0500
>
>On Thursday, November 13, 2003, at 12:29  PM, Joseph Wanzala wrote:
>
>>I am saying that because of the way in which strategic military planning 
>>works, the two policies are part of a piece.
>
>What's the point of this argument? Who on this list would argue that 
>Clinton had a splendid foreign/military policy?
>
>
>Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org
>__________________________________
>When I was a little boy, I had but a little wit,
>'Tis a long time ago, and I have no more yet;
>Nor ever ever shall, until that I die,
>For the longer I live the more fool am I.
>-- Wit and Mirth, an Antidote against Melancholy (1684)
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

_________________________________________________________________
Is your computer infected with a virus?  Find out with a FREE computer virus 
scan from McAfee.  Take the FreeScan now! 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963