Re: This will be a good decade for bicycling!
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
news:hhllq4$14k$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Why you ask? As the plutocracy consolidates their power and wealth, the
> existing and new working poor will not be able to afford private motorized
> transportation. Therefore, fewer motor vehicles on the road, and more
> bicycles ridden for transportation by the new class of de-facto serfs.
Mr. Sherman desires nothing better for mankind than the kind of society
which prevailed in the Soviet Union for most of my life. That is where full
out socialism (communism) will land you. I do not recall many bicycles ever
being ridden in the Soviet Union.
> "Every American government since Reagan has essentially been
> consumed with the task of denuding the middle and working
> classes of their paltry share of the national pie, in order to
> deliver those dollars into the hands of wealthy political
> benefactors." - David Michael Green
I doubt that was ever the intention however it worked out. Capitalism
without some government regulation is impossible I must admit. But let us
never throw out the baby with the bath water. Follow Mr. Sherman and you
will end up living in a "communist paradise", i.e., the old Soviet Union.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
Edward Dolan
"Ron Wallenfang" <rwall...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4cd09da4-c603-4349...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 1, 2:26 pm, Tom Sherman �_�
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> Why you ask? As the plutocracy consolidates their power and wealth, the
> existing and new working poor will not be able to afford private
> motorized transportation. Therefore, fewer motor vehicles on the road,
> and more bicycles ridden for transportation by the new class of de-facto
> serfs.
>> I have no opinion on your political projections, Tom. They're probably
as good as the experts, which isn't saying much.
>> But living in Milwaukee, you ought to know that there's more than
politics standing in the way of mass bicycle commuting, such as cold,
rain, snow and ice, obesity and other symptoms of poor physical
fitness - even heat sometimes.
Mr. Sherman has advised me in a previous post that he is now living in
Eastern Iowa (exactly where he didn't say). He probably thinks Iowa is
somehow less than Wisconsin, never realizing that Iowa is infinitely
superior to Wisconsin in everything but scenery. However, for a true
paradise on this earth, you must go to Minnesota where you will have the
privilege of freezing to death. As I write this, it is 20 degrees below
zero. Hells Bells, I cannot even go out of the house, let alone ride a
freaking bicycle.
Edward Dolan
"DougC" <dci...@norcom2000.com> wrote in message
news:XMt%m.88$nR...@newsfe01.iad...
> On 1/1/2010 2:26 PM, Tom Sherman �_� wrote:
>> Why you ask? As the plutocracy consolidates their power and wealth, the
>> existing and new working poor will not be able to afford private
>> motorized transportation. Therefore, fewer motor vehicles on the road,
>> and more bicycles ridden for transportation by the new class of de-facto
>> serfs.
>>
>
Doug, although I know you are an idiot from previous posts, you also
approach sheer genius at times. Indeed, cycling is a proclivity of an elite,
but one not based on income. Americans will never resort to cycling to get
around. If they are as poor as church mice, they will either walk or take
public transportation.
Cycling only becomes a mass transportation thing in a society where it is
culturally ingrained such as it was in China of recent decades. The
socialist-communist serfs of the former Soviet Union never took to cycling
because it was not in their culture to do so and it most certainly is not in
the American culture ever to resort to cycling no matter how dire the
circumstances. Only a cultural elite ever gets into cycling. Very funny that
Mr. Sherman does not realize this very elementary fact of life.
delboy
> "DougC" <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote in message
I get the impression that most Yanks will only travel in great big gas-
guzzling V8 SUVs, even if it's only to go 100 yards down the road to
the nearest Burger Bar. That is why they do so much damage to the
planet and why so many of them are grossly overweight!
DC
Edward Dolan
"delboy" <del.co...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a547d631-6f11-4bca...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>> I get the impression that most Yanks will only travel in great big gas-
guzzling V8 SUVs, even if it's only to go 100 yards down the road to
the nearest Burger Bar. That is why they do so much damage to the
planet and why so many of them are grossly overweight!
That is substantially correct. But if the Europeans had more elbow room they
would not be any different. We humans live only in our own time and take no
heed for whatever problems we might be creating for future generations.
Life is for the living and let the dead bury the dead!
Unlike most Americans I use my bicycle to go almost everywhere in town. I
use it for all chores as well such as grocery shopping (I have a trike with
a large basket in the rear). But I am the one and only who does any of this.
I put my car into mothballs for the winter months (November through March).
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> I get the impression that most Yanks will only travel in great big gas-
> guzzling V8 SUVs, even if it's only to go 100 yards down the road to
> the nearest Burger Bar. That is why they do so much damage to the
> planet and why so many of them are grossly overweight!
>
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, they also walk at the shopping malls. But there's a lot of hope
things will change in the next 100 years.
delboy
wrote:
> delboy wrote:
> > [...]
> > I get the impression that most Yanks will only travel in great big gas-
> > guzzling V8 SUVs, even if it's only to go 100 yards down the road to
> > the nearest Burger Bar. That is why they do so much damage to the
> > planet and why so many of them are grossly overweight!
>
> Given your user name, do you drive a Reliant Robin?
No, and my surname starts with C rather than T, so it's not Trotter.
DC
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> Response coming after my bike ride and the Packer game;
Technically, should that not be "Packers' game"?
> meanwhile I may sic Ed Dolan on you.
Despite his protests, Ed likes me. ;)
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
[...]
> Obama is merely an overseer for the real rulers of the country. He
> probably wants himself and his family to be alive at the end of his
> term(s).
What liberals fear is what they themselves would like to do. Is Tom Sherman
a potential assassin?
> "A large part of the problem is the atrocious US broadcast
> media. The TV news is one lengthy blowjob for the powerful,
> seeing everything from the perspective of the rich, and
> ridiculing arguments for progress. It serves its owners and
> its advertisers by poisoning every political debate with
> death-panel distractions and silence for the things that
> matter." - Johann Hari
What a laugh the above is! The mass media is liberal to the core. They beat
up on Bush for 8 years and now they are having a slobbering love affair with
Obama no matter how inept he proves to be.
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
> Ron Wallenfang wrote:
>> [...]
>> Response coming after my bike ride and the Packer game;
>
> Technically, should that not be "Packers' game"?
>
>> meanwhile I may sic Ed Dolan on you.
>
> Despite his protests, Ed likes me. ;)
Mr. Sherman has ever proven himself wrongheaded on matters of politics. He
also is an idiot on how this country should conduct its foreign affairs. I
think his worse misstep ever was equating Palestinian terrorists with the
Israeli military. But maybe Muslim terrorists will soon be showing up in
this country and he can gain a clearer understanding of the price of liberal
idiocy.
Ron Wallenfang
Ron Wallenfang
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
I think Packer and Packers are used interchangeably, but the official
name is Packers, so I'll concede you that point.
Look at my six kids as taxpayers helping to ameliorate the Ponzi
scheme our politicians have set up to finance social security,
medicare and other programs. The ever decreasing ratio of workers to
beneficiaries is a critical problem all over the first world, with its
miserably inadequate birthrates, and has moved quite a few nations to
offer benefits for having more children. Look in on the US Census
Bureau's International Data Base and check out total fertility rates
around the developed world.
As for world ecology, it is precisely the prosperous first world
nations that have had the financial wherewithal to move toward clean
air, clean water, bike paths and other such social goods. Population
density is good for bike riding; consider northwestern Europe as an
example.
Tom Sherman °_°
> "Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
> news:hhqliu$d56$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> [...]
>> Obama is merely an overseer for the real rulers of the country. He
>> probably wants himself and his family to be alive at the end of his
>> term(s).
>
> What liberals fear is what they themselves would like to do. Is Tom Sherman
> a potential assassin?
>
>> "A large part of the problem is the atrocious US broadcast
>> media. The TV news is one lengthy blowjob for the powerful,
>> seeing everything from the perspective of the rich, and
>> ridiculing arguments for progress. It serves its owners and
>> its advertisers by poisoning every political debate with
>> death-panel distractions and silence for the things that
>> matter." - Johann Hari
>
> What a laugh the above is! The mass media is liberal to the core. They beat
> up on Bush for 8 years and now they are having a slobbering love affair with
> Obama no matter how inept he proves to be.
>
mixture of neo-con and neo-feudal. Very little liberal, and nothing
progressive about them. President Obama's actions are so far from what
was promised by candidate Obama, the only honorable course left for him
would be to resign.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
"Every American government since Reagan has essentially been
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
OK, let's be honest and frank about it: THERE'S NO HOPE FOR AMERICA...
WE NEED A REVOLUTION --somewhere. ;)
We better start praying and trying for a revolution somewhere, where
things that need to be done are done. Chavez is a clown following the
steps of the original clown, Castro. He brought bicycles to Cuba, but
much later in the process, and people paid a price. No way!
So the hope is some new comandante is not a caudillo, but more like
the European royalty. The European elites have learned to spread the
wealth, while the American ones are trying to isolate themselves in
Gated Communities and ignore the jungle. You feel unsafe in a bike? Go
and buy a real SUV and forget about dreams...
Well, my breakfast is getting cold, but I leave you dreaming with a
revolution. ;)
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
>> What a laugh the above is! The mass media is liberal to the core. They
>> beat up on Bush for 8 years and now they are having a slobbering love
>> affair with Obama no matter how inept he proves to be.
>>
> What Ed conveniently ignores is that Obama's policies have been a mixture
> of neo-con and neo-feudal. Very little liberal, and nothing progressive
> about them. President Obama's actions are so far from what was promised by
> candidate Obama, the only honorable course left for him would be to
> resign.
Obama is not a communist like you, but he is still plenty liberal. If he had
any guts, he would insist on a public option for health care reform.
However, he did the right thing about Afghanistan. Democrats are notoriously
lax with regard to national security issues, so he had better watch himself
as we conservatives are ready to pounce on him if he plays loose with
American security.
Obama will now have to concentrate on getting the job numbers up or he will
be just a one term president.
Americans will not stand for high unemployment.
Tom Sherman °_°
> "Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
> news:hhsd86$hb0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> [...]
>>> What a laugh the above is! The mass media is liberal to the core. They
>>> beat up on Bush for 8 years and now they are having a slobbering love
>>> affair with Obama no matter how inept he proves to be.
>>>
>> What Ed conveniently ignores is that Obama's policies have been a mixture
>> of neo-con and neo-feudal. Very little liberal, and nothing progressive
>> about them. President Obama's actions are so far from what was promised by
>> candidate Obama, the only honorable course left for him would be to
>> resign.
>
> Obama is not a communist like you, but he is still plenty liberal. If he had
> any guts, he would insist on a public option for health care reform.
But that would be against the corporate elite that rule the country.
> However, he did the right thing about Afghanistan. Democrats are notoriously
> lax with regard to national security issues, so he had better watch himself
> as we conservatives are ready to pounce on him if he plays loose with
> American security.
>
Oh Ed, now you are just being silly. Afghanistan has always been about
Central Asian natural gas reserves, not terrorism. Besides, things are
going so well:
<http://www.juancole.com/2010/01/serial-catastrophes-in-afghanistan.html>.
And the whole "War on Terror" was obviously always about manipulating
public opinion, not fighting terrorism.
> Obama will now have to concentrate on getting the job numbers up or he will
> be just a one term president.
> Americans will not stand for high unemployment.
>
The USians that count want high unemployment. Low unemployment gives the
proletariat too much power - workers scared of unemployment are more
compliant. In addition, high unemployment aids military recruitment to
fight wars of imperial conquest. And there are always prisons for those
who complain too much.
<http://www.openleft.com/diary/16774/why-democrats-are-trying-to-commit-electoral-suicide>
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
"To the elites, ordinary Americans are pretty much parasites.
It's not the bankers, with their multi-trillion dollar bailouts
who are the problem, it's old people with their Social Security
and Medicare. The elites made it. They are rich and powerful.
They believe that their success is due entirely to themselves
(even if they inherited the money or position). If you didn't,
then that means you don't deserve it." - Ian Welsh
Edward Dolan
"Peter Cole" <peter...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hhr5aa$drl$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> AMuzi wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>>> Er, you do realize she's been out of government for almost 30 years, and
>>> she only ran NHTSA for 4 years, don't you? Once you wing-nuts find your
>>> demons you never let go, do you? How can you possibly keep spouting this
>>> crap?
>>
>> Well, I still bitch about Johnson and Nixon too.
>
> Some r-w'ers still bitch about FDR, too, but most of them have died off.
>
> I'd stop bitching about Cheney if he'd just go away.
>
> Bitching about Bush is no fun, nobody will defend him.
You obviously only read what you want to read. I have repeatedly proposed
that Cheney be put on Mount Rushmore and that a special monument be built on
the Mall in Washington D C to honor his greatness.
Bush, backed by Cheney, had the guts to take the war to the Muslim
terrorists. We shall see what the present gutless wonder resident in the
White House will do about the war.
Tom Sherman °_°
> On Jan 3, 6:57 pm, Tom Sherman �_�
> <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>> Ron Wallenfang wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Response coming after my bike ride and the Packer game;
>> Technically, should that not be "Packers' game"?
>>
>>> meanwhile I may sic Ed Dolan on you.
>> Despite his protests, Ed likes me. ;)
>>
>
> name is Packers, so I'll concede you that point.
>
> Look at my six kids as taxpayers helping to ameliorate the Ponzi
> scheme our politicians have set up to finance social security,
> medicare and other programs. The ever decreasing ratio of workers to
> beneficiaries is a critical problem all over the first world, with its
> miserably inadequate birthrates, and has moved quite a few nations to
> offer benefits for having more children. Look in on the US Census
> Bureau's International Data Base and check out total fertility rates
> around the developed world.
>
course, removing the regressive cap on the FICA tax would solve the
funding problem.
> As for world ecology, it is precisely the prosperous first world
> nations that have had the financial wherewithal to move toward clean
> air, clean water, bike paths and other such social goods. Population
> density is good for bike riding; consider northwestern Europe as an
> example.
It is also the overconsumption of resources by the "first world" that
are the cause of the ongoing ecological disasters. Of course, the elites
will likely be able to buy their way out of the crisis, while the
"worthless eaters" (thank you Henry Kissinger) will pay the price with
their lives.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
"The last 35 years may have been a bad time to be an ordinary
American, but the elite has seen their wealth and income soar
to levels even greater than the gilded age. The rich, in
America, have never, ever, been as rich as they are now."
- Ian Welsh
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
>> news:hhsd86$hb0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> What a laugh the above is! The mass media is liberal to the core. They
>>>> beat up on Bush for 8 years and now they are having a slobbering love
>>>> affair with Obama no matter how inept he proves to be.
>>>>
>>> What Ed conveniently ignores is that Obama's policies have been a
>>> mixture of neo-con and neo-feudal. Very little liberal, and nothing
>>> progressive about them. President Obama's actions are so far from what
>>> was promised by candidate Obama, the only honorable course left for him
>>> would be to resign.
>>
>> Obama is not a communist like you, but he is still plenty liberal. If he
>> had any guts, he would insist on a public option for health care reform.
>
> But that would be against the corporate elite that rule the country.
Some corporate elites are against a public option, others are in favor of
it. The so-called Blue Dog Democrats do not exist. A Democrat is a Democrat
is a Democrat. Obama is a weak-kneed pussy if truth be told.
>> However, he did the right thing about Afghanistan. Democrats are
>> notoriously lax with regard to national security issues, so he had better
>> watch himself as we conservatives are ready to pounce on him if he plays
>> loose with American security.
>>
> Oh Ed, now you are just being silly. Afghanistan has always been about
> Central Asian natural gas reserves, not terrorism. Besides, things are
> going so well:
> <http://www.juancole.com/2010/01/serial-catastrophes-in-afghanistan.html>.
> And the whole "War on Terror" was obviously always about manipulating
> public opinion, not fighting terrorism.
Afghanistan belongs more to the subcontinent than Central Asia. What natural
gas would that be? The best thing that could happen that would convince you
that the war on terrorism is real is if some of them would show up in your
neighborhood and blow your dumb ass sky high!
>> Obama will now have to concentrate on getting the job numbers up or he
>> will be just a one term president.
>> Americans will not stand for high unemployment.
>>
> The USians that count want high unemployment. Low unemployment gives the
> proletariat too much power - workers scared of unemployment are more
> compliant. In addition, high unemployment aids military recruitment to
> fight wars of imperial conquest. And there are always prisons for those
> who complain too much.
> <http://www.openleft.com/diary/16774/why-democrats-are-trying-to-commit-electoral-suicide>
As always, you are so intent on looking behind the scenes that you miss the
main scene, which is that of politicians wanting to get reelected to office.
That depends on voters, not corporations. Prepare for a big turnover this
midterm election if the economy does not pick up.
> "To the elites, ordinary Americans are pretty much parasites.
> It's not the bankers, with their multi-trillion dollar bailouts
> who are the problem, it's old people with their Social Security
> and Medicare. The elites made it. They are rich and powerful.
> They believe that their success is due entirely to themselves
> (even if they inherited the money or position). If you didn't,
> then that means you don't deserve it." - Ian Welsh
The trouble with the above is that the elites only number in a few hundreds
of thousands, whereas everyone else numbers in the hundreds of millions.
Numbers count more in the end than the wealth of the few.
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
> Ron Wallenfang wrote:
[...]
>> Look at my six kids as taxpayers helping to ameliorate the Ponzi
>> scheme our politicians have set up to finance social security,
>> medicare and other programs. The ever decreasing ratio of workers to
>> beneficiaries is a critical problem all over the first world, with its
>> miserably inadequate birthrates, and has moved quite a few nations to
>> offer benefits for having more children. Look in on the US Census
>> Bureau's International Data Base and check out total fertility rates
>> around the developed world.
>>
> Those problems will be fixed by increasing the retirement age. Of course,
> removing the regressive cap on the FICA tax would solve the funding
> problem.
I think the retirement age is already at the maximum. Old folks just want to
sleep all day. And why shouldn't the working class pay for their social
security. Not everything in life can be progressive like the income tax.
>> As for world ecology, it is precisely the prosperous first world
>> nations that have had the financial wherewithal to move toward clean
>> air, clean water, bike paths and other such social goods. Population
>> density is good for bike riding; consider northwestern Europe as an
>> example.
>
> It is also the overconsumption of resources by the "first world" that are
> the cause of the ongoing ecological disasters. Of course, the elites will
> likely be able to buy their way out of the crisis, while the "worthless
> eaters" (thank you Henry Kissinger) will pay the price with their lives.
The third world can't wait to become exactly like us. In fact, it may well
be that China and India will do the world in, not the US or Europe.
> "The last 35 years may have been a bad time to be an ordinary
> American, but the elite has seen their wealth and income soar
> to levels even greater than the gilded age. The rich, in
> America, have never, ever, been as rich as they are now."
> - Ian Welsh
And what do the rich do with their extra wealth? They spend millions on
second and third homes. How stupid can you get!
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
> "Tom Sherman °_°" <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in messagenews:hhuo5r$dda$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Edward Dolan wrote:
> >> "Tom Sherman °_°" <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
>
> As always, you are so intent on looking behind the scenes that you miss the
> main scene, which is that of politicians wanting to get reelected to office.
> That depends on voters, not corporations. Prepare for a big turnover this
> midterm election if the economy does not pick up.
>
> > "To the elites, ordinary Americans are pretty much parasites.
> > It's not the bankers, with their multi-trillion dollar bailouts
> > who are the problem, it's old people with their Social Security
> > and Medicare. The elites made it. They are rich and powerful.
> > They believe that their success is due entirely to themselves
> > (even if they inherited the money or position). If you didn't,
> > then that means you don't deserve it." - Ian Welsh
>
> The trouble with the above is that the elites only number in a few hundreds
> of thousands, whereas everyone else numbers in the hundreds of millions.
> Numbers count more in the end than the wealth of the few.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
>
> - Show quoted text -
The only need a fraction of the population to control the rest. And
the people who work for the government are part of the first group.
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
>
>
>
>
>
> > Edward Dolan wrote:
> >> "Tom Sherman °_°" <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
>
> As always, you are so intent on looking behind the scenes that you miss the
> main scene, which is that of politicians wanting to get reelected to office.
> That depends on voters, not corporations. Prepare for a big turnover this
> midterm election if the economy does not pick up.
>
> > "To the elites, ordinary Americans are pretty much parasites.
> > It's not the bankers, with their multi-trillion dollar bailouts
> > who are the problem, it's old people with their Social Security
> > and Medicare. The elites made it. They are rich and powerful.
> > They believe that their success is due entirely to themselves
> > (even if they inherited the money or position). If you didn't,
> > then that means you don't deserve it." - Ian Welsh
>
> The trouble with the above is that the elites only number in a few hundreds
> of thousands, whereas everyone else numbers in the hundreds of millions.
> Numbers count more in the end than the wealth of the few.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
>
> - Show quoted text -
They only need a fraction of the population to control the majority.
And the people who work for the government are part of the first
group. The media, the fear and indifference does the rest.
Edward Dolan
"TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle"
<nolionn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ee98e18d-67c4-4e0a...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...[...]
> The trouble with the above is that the elites only number in a few
> hundreds
> of thousands, whereas everyone else numbers in the hundreds of millions.
> Numbers count more in the end than the wealth of the few.
>> They only need a fraction of the population to control the majority.
And the people who work for the government are part of the first
group. The media, the fear and indifference does the rest.
Probably mostly true in normal times, but an aroused public in a democracy
can change things rather quickly. But usually things have got to get worse
before they can get better.
Tim McNamara
Tom Sherman �_� <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> And the whole "War on Terror" was obviously always about manipulating
> public opinion, not fighting terrorism.
Ditto the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, the War on Illiteracy, etc.
"War" is a terribly misused word and is misapplied to these things as
some kind of indication of commitment and resolve.
--
"I wear the cheese, it does not wear me."
andre...@aol.com
>
> The trouble with the above is that the elites only number in a few hundreds
> of thousands, whereas everyone else numbers in the hundreds of millions.
> Numbers count more in the end than the wealth of the few.
>
Hahahaha. that was actually pretty funny.
Good one
Tom Sherman °_°
> "Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
> news:hhuo5r$dda$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> "Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
>>> news:hhsd86$hb0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> What a laugh the above is! The mass media is liberal to the core. They
>>>>> beat up on Bush for 8 years and now they are having a slobbering love
>>>>> affair with Obama no matter how inept he proves to be.
>>>>>
>>>> What Ed conveniently ignores is that Obama's policies have been a
>>>> mixture of neo-con and neo-feudal. Very little liberal, and nothing
>>>> progressive about them. President Obama's actions are so far from what
>>>> was promised by candidate Obama, the only honorable course left for him
>>>> would be to resign.
>>> Obama is not a communist like you, but he is still plenty liberal. If he
>>> had any guts, he would insist on a public option for health care reform.
>> But that would be against the corporate elite that rule the country.
>
> Some corporate elites are against a public option, others are in favor of
> it. The so-called Blue Dog Democrats do not exist. A Democrat is a Democrat
> is a Democrat. Obama is a weak-kneed pussy if truth be told.
>
>>> However, he did the right thing about Afghanistan. Democrats are
>>> notoriously lax with regard to national security issues, so he had better
>>> watch himself as we conservatives are ready to pounce on him if he plays
>>> loose with American security.
>>>
>> Oh Ed, now you are just being silly. Afghanistan has always been about
>> Central Asian natural gas reserves, not terrorism. Besides, things are
>> going so well:
>> <http://www.juancole.com/2010/01/serial-catastrophes-in-afghanistan.html>.
>> And the whole "War on Terror" was obviously always about manipulating
>> public opinion, not fighting terrorism.
>
> Afghanistan belongs more to the subcontinent than Central Asia. What natural
> gas would that be? The best thing that could happen that would convince you
> that the war on terrorism is real is if some of them would show up in your
> neighborhood and blow your dumb ass sky high!
>
al Qaeda in Iowa blows up a grain elevator! Whoo Hoo! /sarcasm
>>> Obama will now have to concentrate on getting the job numbers up or he
>>> will be just a one term president.
>>> Americans will not stand for high unemployment.
>>>
>> The USians that count want high unemployment. Low unemployment gives the
>> proletariat too much power - workers scared of unemployment are more
>> compliant. In addition, high unemployment aids military recruitment to
>> fight wars of imperial conquest. And there are always prisons for those
>> who complain too much.
>> <http://www.openleft.com/diary/16774/why-democrats-are-trying-to-commit-electoral-suicide>
>
> As always, you are so intent on looking behind the scenes that you miss the
> main scene, which is that of politicians wanting to get reelected to office.
> That depends on voters, not corporations. Prepare for a big turnover this
> midterm election if the economy does not pick up.
>
Replace the old overseers with new overseers.
If the USian people were informed, 95% of the members of Congress
elected in 2010 would be Libertarian or Green.
>> "To the elites, ordinary Americans are pretty much parasites.
>> It's not the bankers, with their multi-trillion dollar bailouts
>> who are the problem, it's old people with their Social Security
>> and Medicare. The elites made it. They are rich and powerful.
>> They believe that their success is due entirely to themselves
>> (even if they inherited the money or position). If you didn't,
>> then that means you don't deserve it." - Ian Welsh
>
> The trouble with the above is that the elites only number in a few hundreds
> of thousands, whereas everyone else numbers in the hundreds of millions.
> Numbers count more in the end than the wealth of the few.
>
Really Ed? History says differently.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
"The last 35 years may have been a bad time to be an ordinary
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> And what do the rich do with their extra wealth? They spend millions on
> second and third homes. How stupid can you get!
>
part time work, and in the end leave the principal to no-kill cat shelters.
Ron Wallenfang
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> Ron Wallenfang wrote:
> >
>
> > Look at my six kids as taxpayers helping to ameliorate the Ponzi
> > scheme our politicians have set up to finance social security,
> > medicare and other programs. The ever decreasing ratio of workers to
> > beneficiaries is a critical problem all over the first world, with its
> > miserably inadequate birthrates, and has moved quite a few nations to
> > offer benefits for having more children. Look in on the US Census
> > Bureau's International Data Base and check out total fertility rates
> > around the developed world.
>
> Those problems will be fixed by increasing the retirement age. Of
> course, removing the regressive cap on the FICA tax would solve the
> funding problem.
You're right to the extent that we're already raising the retirement
age. A 1980s era bipartisan political deal allowed higher social
security payments to current beneficiaries than they had earned via
the taxes they paid, by raising normal retirement age from 65 to 67
over a period of years after 2000. (We're at 66 right now with
further increases coming.) Politically it's working like a charm; no
one who was about to be shafted 30 years later noticed enough to put
up a fuss, and now it's a fiat accompli. But it was ethically
bankrupt: pure robbery of the present generation to the benefit of the
last generation. Now that card has been played and where to you go
from here? Increase it to 70?? 75?? The "savings" from increaseing
the eligibility age have already been spent and the system will still
bankrupt - though a sustained replacement level birthrate will help.
Social security may (or may not) be justified as a species of
compulsory savings program. But in the Liberals hands (with in
fairness, more than a few conservative fellow travelers - even Reagan
signed off on the 1980s deal noted above), it's not that. Liberals
now want to decide how much to take and from whom, and to whom to
give it, as if the entire national income is theirs to distribute, and
real earners keep only as much as the gov't deigns to let them keep.
Nothing illustrates this better than the comment above about taxing
all income for social security purposes, not just an amount sufficient
to justify benefits received. This is about government control -
nothing more or less. And it's wrong, wrong, wrong!
>
> > As for world ecology, it is precisely the prosperous first world
> > nations that have had the financial wherewithal to move toward clean
> > air, clean water, bike paths and other such social goods. Population
> > density is good for bike riding; consider northwestern Europe as an
> > example.
>
> It is also the overconsumption of resources by the "first world" that
> are the cause of the ongoing ecological disasters. Of course, the elites
> will likely be able to buy their way out of the crisis, while the
> "worthless eaters" (thank you Henry Kissinger) will pay the price with
> their lives.
I disagree but I've used up my quota of bile for the day. The worst
ecological problems are away from the first world - polluted rivers
and air, lack of sanitary facilities, rampant communicable diseases,
undrinkable water - the list of real problems can go on forever. Oh,
and unsafe bicycling conditions.
> --
> Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
>
> "The last 35 years may have been a bad time to be an ordinary
> American, but the elite has seen their wealth and income soar
> to levels even greater than the gilded age. The rich, in
> America, have never, ever, been as rich as they are now."
> - Ian Welsh- Hide quoted text -
Tom Sherman °_°
retire, and none at all before 65.
> Social security may (or may not) be justified as a species of
> compulsory savings program. But in the Liberals hands (with in
> fairness, more than a few conservative fellow travelers - even Reagan
> signed off on the 1980s deal noted above), it's not that. Liberals
> now want to decide how much to take and from whom, and to whom to
> give it, as if the entire national income is theirs to distribute, and
> real earners keep only as much as the gov't deigns to let them keep.
> Nothing illustrates this better than the comment above about taxing
> all income for social security purposes, not just an amount sufficient
> to justify benefits received. This is about government control -
> nothing more or less. And it's wrong, wrong, wrong!
>
Nonsense. No one makes money in a vacuum, and no one becomes rich
without exploiting the labors of others. Taxes are just recouping some
of the unearned wealth for the benefit of society.
>>> As for world ecology, it is precisely the prosperous first world
>>> nations that have had the financial wherewithal to move toward clean
>>> air, clean water, bike paths and other such social goods. Population
>>> density is good for bike riding; consider northwestern Europe as an
>>> example.
>> It is also the overconsumption of resources by the "first world" that
>> are the cause of the ongoing ecological disasters. Of course, the elites
>> will likely be able to buy their way out of the crisis, while the
>> "worthless eaters" (thank you Henry Kissinger) will pay the price with
>> their lives.
>
> I disagree but I've used up my quota of bile for the day.
Lightweight! ;) I once had an argument with Ed Dolan that went over 500
posts. ;)
> The worst
> ecological problems are away from the first world - polluted rivers
> and air, lack of sanitary facilities, rampant communicable diseases,
> undrinkable water - the list of real problems can go on forever. Oh,
> and unsafe bicycling conditions.
>
Overconsumption of fossil fuels, minerals, potable water, etc are
primarily first world sins, with only a small elite minority doing the
same in developing countries. These are the one that will lead to
ecosystem collapse.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
Jay Beattie
Exploiting the labor of others? Isn't that called creating jobs?
Here is a prescription for you: (1) quit your job, (2) go in to
business for yourself, (3) employ six or more employees (4) report
back in ten years with your views on taxes and "unearned wealth." --
Jay Beattie.
Tim McNamara
<aa04e7f5-065e-4bf3...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
"andre...@aol.com" <andre...@aol.com> wrote:
I recall reading a WSJ article (I think it was the WSJ) in which they
reported that something like 17% of Americans thought they were in the
top 1% or top 5% (can't recall which).
Dan O
Fuck you.
Dan O
Sorry 'bout that.
Jim A
> Exploiting the labor of others? Isn't that called creating jobs?
> Here is a prescription for you: (1) quit your job, (2) go in to
> business for yourself, (3) employ six or more employees
That's where your argument falls down.
> (4) report
> back in ten years with your views on taxes and "unearned wealth." --
> Jay Beattie.
Cheers,
Jim
--
www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride
Jim A
Of the world population they probably are.
Tom Sherman °_°
butbutbut, you are not going to get into the theoretical upper tax
brackets doing that, unless you are involved in suing people and taking
the lion's share of the settlements.
Here is more realistic scenario - go to a $50K/year prep school, get a
legacy admission to an Ivy League school, get the best internships from
friends of the family, go from graduation into a management career
track, do well because you know all the right people, get paid millions
for doing a mediocre job of upper management.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
"To the elites, ordinary Americans are pretty much parasites.
Tom Sherman °_°
I was hoping you would expand on your original thought.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
"To the elites, ordinary Americans are pretty much parasites.
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
>> The best thing that could happen that would convince you that the war on
>> terrorism is real is if some of them would show up in your neighborhood
>> and blow your dumb ass sky high!
>>
> al Qaeda in Iowa blows up a grain elevator! Whoo Hoo! /sarcasm
The purpose of Islamic terrorism is to sow fear among the populace, not
necessarily to blow up anything that matters. How about a Muslim terrorist
goes to an Iowa football game, blows himself up and takes several hundred
Iowans with him. Think that might bring you to your senses?
[...]
>> The trouble with the above is that the elites only number in a few
>> hundreds of thousands, whereas everyone else numbers in the hundreds of
>> millions. Numbers count more in the end than the wealth of the few.
>>
> Really Ed? History says differently.
There is short run history and there is long run history. If and when things
get bad enough, you can count on change. I refer you to the Bolshevik
revolution in Czarist Russia of 1917, although the classic case for most of
the rest of us is the French Revolution of 1789-1799.
You must get over your envy of the wealthy. They can choke on their money
for all I care as long as I have a modicum of freedom to live my life as I
please. I think that is the attitude of most folks. Always remember, the
best things in life are free!
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
[...]
> Here is more realistic scenario - go to a $50K/year prep school, get a
> legacy admission to an Ivy League school, get the best internships from
> friends of the family, go from graduation into a management career track,
> do well because you know all the right people, get paid millions for doing
> a mediocre job of upper management.
Mr. Sherman reminds me of the poor little boy (a la Charles Dickens) looking
from the cold outside into a warm room at the well off and dying of envy.
But why? They are few in number and have their own crosses to bear. Does
anyone here envy the life of Jack Kennedy for instance?
It is a full time job for the rich to hang onto their wealth since others
are always trying to take it away from them. They must invest their wealth
and put it to work in the society at large. If they don't do that, they will
not be wealthy for very long.
The richest possessions any person can have are good health and an active
mind. If you have that, you have everything. Mr. Sherman seems not to
realize how wealthy he is.
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
> In article <hhuo5r$dd...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Tom Sherman °_° <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>
> > And the whole "War on Terror" was obviously always about manipulating
> > public opinion, not fighting terrorism.
>
> Ditto the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, the War on Illiteracy, etc.
> "War" is a terribly misused word and is misapplied to these things as
> some kind of indication of commitment and resolve.
>
> --
> "I wear the cheese, it does not wear me."
I'm just waiting for the War on SUVs (Stupid Unsafe Vehicles)...
Jay Beattie
I do defense work (and not contingent fee work), so I don't get a
percentage of any settlements -- but I could. I could have made that
choice -- trying crappy fender bender cases until a good case came
along, hoping to make enough so my secretary, paralegal and bookkeeper
all get their paychecks like clockwork. There are plaintiff's
attorneys out there who make gross sums of money, but those attorneys
made a choice, paid the price, and it paid off for them big time. We
cannot whine about their choices.
> Here is more realistic scenario - go to a $50K/year prep school, get a
> legacy admission to an Ivy League school, get the best internships from
> friends of the family, go from graduation into a management career
> track, do well because you know all the right people, get paid millions
> for doing a mediocre job of upper management.
Or a more realistic scenario: come from a middle class (albeit
academic) family. Go to a good West Coast college, start at the
bottom doing route sales, work up through various divisions and then
become CEO/chairman of the company. That is the story of my uncle,
who was CEO/chairman of Pfizer. My other uncle has a similar story,
although he went out on his own and started a chain of stores called
Trader Joe's (actually it started as Pronto Markets and became Trader
Joe's). In the meantime, my father made the choice to open his own
small business -- a drug store. It paid the bills, gave his children
a place to work and made him happy, if not rich. Some of our long term
employees were like family, and many kids in town got their first jobs
at the store. It was hardly a situation of getting rich off the labor
of others.-- Jay Beattie.
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
> > It is also the overconsumption of resources by the "first world" that
> > are the cause of the ongoing ecological disasters. Of course, the elites
> > will likely be able to buy their way out of the crisis, while the
> > "worthless eaters" (thank you Henry Kissinger) will pay the price with
> > their lives.
>
> I disagree but I've used up my quota of bile for the day. The worst
> ecological problems are away from the first world - polluted rivers
> and air, lack of sanitary facilities, rampant communicable diseases,
> undrinkable water - the list of real problems can go on forever. Oh,
> and unsafe bicycling conditions.
I thought we enjoyed UNSAFE BICYCLE CONDITIONS in the First World as
well.
But the Third World only does what they see on American TV and what
their elites see when they travel to the First World, and probably
they have a high concentration of SUVs going up and down their broken
roads.
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
Thank you. That's what I said before. And China and India are catching
up with this pattern as they work toward "progress."
Edward Dolan
"Jay Beattie" <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
news:6212b72d-417f-4994...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 6, 12:18 am, Tom Sherman �_�
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> Here is more realistic scenario - go to a $50K/year prep school, get a
> legacy admission to an Ivy League school, get the best internships from
> friends of the family, go from graduation into a management career
> track, do well because you know all the right people, get paid millions
> for doing a mediocre job of upper management.
>> Or a more realistic scenario: come from a middle class (albeit
academic) family. Go to a good West Coast college, start at the
bottom doing route sales, work up through various divisions and then
become CEO/chairman of the company. That is the story of my uncle,
who was CEO/chairman of Pfizer. My other uncle has a similar story,
although he went out on his own and started a chain of stores called
Trader Joe's (actually it started as Pronto Markets and became Trader
Joe's). In the meantime, my father made the choice to open his own
small business -- a drug store. It paid the bills, gave his children
a place to work and made him happy, if not rich. Some of our long term
employees were like family, and many kids in town got their first jobs
at the store. It was hardly a situation of getting rich off the labor
of others.-- Jay Beattie.
Mr. Sherman's group are investors and Mr. Beattie's group are entrepreneurs.
A capitalist society needs both types. I reserve a certain amount of disdain
for both types. But they make my life style possible (that of a dilettante
who abhors anything approaching the world of work) so I can't complain too
much. What amuses me the most is all the pleasure that these investor types
and entrepreneur types take in their rather trivial accomplishments. Well,
not everyone can be an aristocrat like me. Like God, I simply am!
Ron Ruff
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> Give me a million dollars, and I will use the interest income to allow
> part time work, and in the end leave the principal to no-kill cat shelters.
Give me 1/10th that much and I'll quit working altogether...
Ron Ruff
> Exploiting the labor of others? Isn't that called creating jobs?
> Here is a prescription for you: (1) quit your job, (2) go in to
> business for yourself, (3) employ six or more employees (4) report
> back in ten years with your views on taxes and "unearned wealth." --
> Jay Beattie.
Nobody hires people unless they plan to get more out of them than they
have to give them. If this relationship is one in which you "create"
jobs that pay and benefit those workers better than they could receive
elsewhere, then you are truly providing a service... while also being
served. Else you are not doing them any favors.
Ron Ruff
> My other uncle has a similar story,
> although he went out on his own and started a chain of stores called
> Trader Joe's (actually it started as Pronto Markets and became Trader
> Joe's). In the meantime, my father made the choice to open his own
> small business -- a drug store.
Could you talk to your uncle about opening a Trader Joe's in Ruidoso
NM? I hate having to go to Albuquerque...
AMuzi
Dan O wrote:
> Fuck you.
Your wise gracious and considered reply validates Ron's
statements.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Edward Dolan
"AMuzi" <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
news:hi2neh$cbh$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
[...]
> Dan O wrote:
>> Fuck you.
>
> Your wise gracious and considered reply validates Ron's statements.
I have learned from long and bitter experience that the only proper reply is
... fuck you too!
Tim McNamara
Jim A <j...@averyjim.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
That ratio may be even more skewed. The CIA Factbook inline contains
information along these lines. There is some fascinating information
there about the comparative performances of various economies. One of
them is that there is very little relationship between taxes and
productivity.
Tom Sherman °_°
> "Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
> news:hi1h08$mnb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> [...]
>> Here is more realistic scenario - go to a $50K/year prep school, get a
>> legacy admission to an Ivy League school, get the best internships from
>> friends of the family, go from graduation into a management career track,
>> do well because you know all the right people, get paid millions for doing
>> a mediocre job of upper management.
>
> Mr. Sherman reminds me of the poor little boy (a la Charles Dickens) looking
> from the cold outside into a warm room at the well off and dying of envy.
Mr. Dolan confuses envy with moral disgust. I would not want to be rich
at the price of immorally exploiting others.
> But why? They are few in number and have their own crosses to bear. Does
> anyone here envy the life of Jack Kennedy for instance?
>
He had the choice of changing his name to John Doe and living a private
life. Most people in the world have very limited opportunities.
> It is a full time job for the rich to hang onto their wealth since others
> are always trying to take it away from them. They must invest their wealth
> and put it to work in the society at large. If they don't do that, they will
> not be wealthy for very long.[...]
>
No, the rich make the rules to exploit others - has been so in almost
every society.
In the US in recent years, so much wealth has gone to the rich, they
have a glut of money - much more than is needed for capital investment.
So they play games on Wall Street [1], put the money in foreign tax
shelters, etc.
If you want to stimulate the economy, increase the share of the working
classes, since they will spend most of it and create the demand for
capital improvement. Tax cuts for the rich in the current environment do
little to nothing to stimulate the economy, since lack of capital for
investment is not a problem.
[1] The world's largest gambling operation.
Tom Sherman °_°
> "Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
> news:hi0tfk$696$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> [...]
>>> The best thing that could happen that would convince you that the war on
>>> terrorism is real is if some of them would show up in your neighborhood
>>> and blow your dumb ass sky high!
>>>
>> al Qaeda in Iowa blows up a grain elevator! Whoo Hoo! /sarcasm
>
> The purpose of Islamic terrorism is to sow fear among the populace, not
> necessarily to blow up anything that matters.
"Islamic terrorism" is an oxymoron, since Islam does not condone
terrorism. Like all religions, there are those who preach false beliefs
to advance a heretical agenda.
> How about a Muslim terrorist
> goes to an Iowa football game, blows himself up and takes several hundred
> Iowans with him. Think that might bring you to your senses?
> [...]
>
More likely an Iowa State fan being a suicide bomber at Kinnick Stadium. ;)
>>> The trouble with the above is that the elites only number in a few
>>> hundreds of thousands, whereas everyone else numbers in the hundreds of
>>> millions. Numbers count more in the end than the wealth of the few.
>>>
>> Really Ed? History says differently.
>
> There is short run history and there is long run history. If and when things
> get bad enough, you can count on change. I refer you to the Bolshevik
> revolution in Czarist Russia of 1917, although the classic case for most of
> the rest of us is the French Revolution of 1789-1799.
>
In the Lenninist revolutions, the aristocracy is merely replaced by
another authoritarian class. What Lenin, Mao, et al practiced was not
true Communism/Marxism.
> You must get over your envy of the wealthy.
See my other post to disabuse yourself of this false conclusion.
> They can choke on their money
> for all I care as long as I have a modicum of freedom to live my life as I
> please. I think that is the attitude of most folks. Always remember, the
> best things in life are free!
>
Wealth is freedom in US society. Lack of wealth is servitude to the rich.
AMuzi
Tom Sherman �_� wrote:
> "Islamic terrorism" is an oxymoron, since Islam does not
condone
> terrorism. Like all religions, there are those who preach false beliefs
> to advance a heretical agenda.
"the Prophet Muhammad said that when Judgment Day draws
near, the final war between the Muslims and the Jews will
take place. The Prophet said that the Muslims would kill the
Jews.
" 'Judgment Day will not come before the Muslims fight the
Jews and kill them.' The Muslims will kill the Jews. Be
patient. All the trees and all the stones will say: 'Oh
Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come
and kill him ...' "
Koran:
2:10 Disbelievers are diseased.
2:99 Disbelievers are evil people.
2:104 For disbelievers is a painful doom.
2:171 Disbelievers are deaf, dumb, and blind.
3:28 Let not the believers take disbelievers for their
friends in preference of believers.
3:73 Don't believe anyone who is not a Muslim.
3:48 Don't be friends with non-Muslims. They all hate you
and want to ruin you.
4:89 Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers
wherever you find them.
4:63 Oppose those who refuse to follow Muhammad.
4:101 The disbelievers are an open enemy to you.
4:144 Do not choose disbelievers as friends.
5:51 Don't take Jews or Christians for friends. If you do,
then Allah will consider you to be one of them.
5:51 Jews and Christians are losers.
5:60 Allah turned unbelievers into apes and swine.
5:59 Jews and Christians are evil people.
5:57 Don't choose Jews, Christians, or disbelievers as
guardians.
6:106 Stay away from disbelievers.
8:55 The worst beasts in Allah's sight are the disbelievers.
**
9:5 Slay the disbelievers wherever you find them.
**
9:28 Disbelievers are unclean.
9:30 Christians and Jews are perverts. Allah himself fights
against them.
Tom Sherman °_°
Tim McNamara
AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
"We're good, everybody else is bad." That's an underlying belief in
almost all religions and most "isms." Maybe not Buddhism.
Tom Sherman °_°
>
> "We're good, everybody else is bad." That's an underlying belief in
> almost all religions and most "isms." Maybe not Buddhism.
>
Ron Wallenfang
> In article <hi3e1o$43...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Regarding the "We're good, everybody else is bad" generalization, may
I commend to your attention the Vatican 2 documents on ecumenism and
religious feedom, for official Catholic teaching on those subjects.
Regarding Islam, Andrew rightly went to the source and laid out many
citations to the Koran, to help focus the question: To what extent do
the foundational documents of Islam mandate the agenda of today's
radical Jahadists?? Or can there be a kinder, gentler Islam??
I dusted off my Koran and had a look at them, mindful that I can react
only to the language; I'm a stranger to the tradition. As far as I
can tell, the case is not hopeless for the ultimate intra-Muslim
condemnation of the radical Jihadists. Putting the best light on
their side of the case, I would argue:
1. The Chapter 2 cites only address what God will do to the
unbeliever. No mandate there for the faithful to play the role of the
avenging angel.
2. The Chapter 3 and 5 cites, 4.101, 4.144 and 6.106 are decidedly
unecumenical, but mandate separation, not violence. Still, there are
lots of cites, and it's difficult to reconcile them with the
achievement of a modern diverse society that recognizes, as the Koran
says elsewhere [2.256] that there can [and should] be no compulsion in
matters of religion. They are troubling.
3. It's difficult to see much hope for acceptable relationships in Ch.
9. The best I can come up with is that they are extravagant
exaggerations along the lines of Christ's sermon on the mount (e.g.
"if thy right eye is an occasion of sin, cut it out"), designed to
make a different point. Or perhaps that they are timebound to
Mohammed's day, such as St. Paul's "mandate" in I Cor that women must
cover their heads. Or maybe that they are overridden by other verses
demanding tolerance, e.g 2.256. After all, the Christian bible has a
goodly number of seemingly conflicting statements that have to be
reconciled with each other.
I want to believe that this civil war within Islam will end well for
everyone. I especially want to believe it because the alternative is
so unattractive. But I'm not expecting the day to come in my
lifetime, when I can bicycle between Mecca and Medina to worship
Christ.
Ron Ruff
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> You must get an excellent rate of return on your investments!
I certainly do! About 20 years ago I decided to see how much I really
needed to spend to live well... $4k/yr was a piece of cake, and I'm
sure I'd do fine with less. There is always the option of moving to a
3rd world country, too...
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> Regarding the "We're good, everybody else is bad" generalization, may
Are these online? It takes 6 monks and a mule to carry the hard copy around.
Ron Wallenfang
It's on www.ewtn.com
Ron Wallenfang
Let's try more detail: www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V2ALL.HTM -
Cached
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> "To the elites, ordinary Americans are pretty much parasites.
> It's not the bankers, with their multi-trillion dollar bailouts
> who are the problem, it's old people with their Social Security
> and Medicare. The elites made it. They are rich and powerful.
> They believe that their success is due entirely to themselves
> (even if they inherited the money or position). If you didn't,
> then that means you don't deserve it." - Ian Welsh
I've been looking for a statement like that because I've believed in
it for a long time. It's the filthy rich backed by ordinary elderly
people who run THIS country and by extension the whole world based on
the privileged position they hold. That's DEMOCRACY, or so they call
it. Now, do they care about the ordinary people not having the
benefits they enjoy in other civilized countries? i mean benefits like
UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE, SAFE ROADS, BIKE FACILITIES...
Obama is doing something about the first one, but he's struggling with
a waterdown compromise. Will we ever see safe roads and bike
facilities? Yeah sure...
"I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to
die in." -George McGovern
A REVOLUTION FOR THE YOUNG?
Sorry, guys, but this revolution is for the young --or at least for
the young at heart-- who care about the future, and about a quality of
life surrounding their needs.
Regrettably, they are not being enticed into politics. Important
issues like TRAFFIC SAFETY and BIKE FACILITIES are kept out of the
political discourse. Simply, cunning politicians lure the elderly, who
are easily duped with the politics of fear.* Remember the 2000
elections in Miami-Dade County. In other words: the Banana Republic
relies on the old and ignorant, while the Banana Revolution appeals to
the young and hopeful...
* fear of terrorism, communism, etc.
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
I believe in the Church of Common Sense, thus I'm the Tibetan Monkey.
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
>> news:hi0tfk$696$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> The best thing that could happen that would convince you that the war
>>>> on terrorism is real is if some of them would show up in your
>>>> neighborhood and blow your dumb ass sky high!
>>>>
>>> al Qaeda in Iowa blows up a grain elevator! Whoo Hoo! /sarcasm
>>
>> The purpose of Islamic terrorism is to sow fear among the populace, not
>> necessarily to blow up anything that matters.
>
> "Islamic terrorism" is an oxymoron, since Islam does not condone
> terrorism. Like all religions, there are those who preach false beliefs to
> advance a heretical agenda.
Islam actually does condone terrorism. In fact, it is a religion of war, not
peace. Anyone but me ever notice how silent the so-called Muslim majority is
about Muslims killing Christians?
>> How about a Muslim terrorist goes to an Iowa football game, blows himself
>> up and takes several hundred Iowans with him. Think that might bring you
>> to your senses?
>> [...]
>>
> More likely an Iowa State fan being a suicide bomber at Kinnick Stadium.
> ;)
You cannot compare an individual killer with a group dedicated to killing
another group. It is apples and oranges.
>>>> The trouble with the above is that the elites only number in a few
>>>> hundreds of thousands, whereas everyone else numbers in the hundreds of
>>>> millions. Numbers count more in the end than the wealth of the few.
>>>>
>>> Really Ed? History says differently.
>>
>> There is short run history and there is long run history. If and when
>> things get bad enough, you can count on change. I refer you to the
>> Bolshevik revolution in Czarist Russia of 1917, although the classic case
>> for most of the rest of us is the French Revolution of 1789-1799.
>>
> In the Lenninist revolutions, the aristocracy is merely replaced by
> another authoritarian class. What Lenin, Mao, et al practiced was not true
> Communism/Marxism.
You are quite wrong about that. It was the most serious attempt ever in the
history of mankind to have the proletariat rule. Too bad for you that they
turned out to be nothing but thugs and killers. But that is the proletariat
for you. Union leaders mostly fall into this type also - thugs and killers.
>> You must get over your envy of the wealthy.
>
> See my other post to disabuse yourself of this false conclusion.
You should know by now that I never go to any other posts. Each and every
post must be complete in and of itself.
>> They can choke on their money for all I care as long as I have a modicum
>> of freedom to live my life as I please. I think that is the attitude of
>> most folks. Always remember, the best things in life are free!
>>
> Wealth is freedom in US society. Lack of wealth is servitude to the rich.
You do need enough income so that you are not constantly thinking about it
all the time. But that is an easy threshold to meet. It is not the rich that
is the source of our troubles, but rather ourselves.
Peter Cole
I'm disappointed that you would cut & paste such propaganda from some
hate-mongering source without vetting it.
That's low even by the standards of this group.
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
>> news:hi1h08$mnb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> [...]
>>> Here is more realistic scenario - go to a $50K/year prep school, get a
>>> legacy admission to an Ivy League school, get the best internships from
>>> friends of the family, go from graduation into a management career
>>> track, do well because you know all the right people, get paid millions
>>> for doing a mediocre job of upper management.
>>
>> Mr. Sherman reminds me of the poor little boy (a la Charles Dickens)
>> looking from the cold outside into a warm room at the well off and dying
>> of envy.
>
> Mr. Dolan confuses envy with moral disgust. I would not want to be rich at
> the price of immorally exploiting others.
No one in this day and age has "moral disgust", but as far as I can see
almost everyone has lots and lots of envy. Is Wal-Mart exploiting anyone? I
say no since they employ unskilled labor. Most of those folks who work at
Wal-Mart are lucky to have a job at all.
>> But why? They are few in number and have their own crosses to bear. Does
>> anyone here envy the life of Jack Kennedy for instance?
>>
> He had the choice of changing his name to John Doe and living a private
> life. Most people in the world have very limited opportunities.
But you would not want to have lived his life even so. Nor would I.
>> It is a full time job for the rich to hang onto their wealth since others
>> are always trying to take it away from them. They must invest their
>> wealth and put it to work in the society at large. If they don't do that,
>> they will not be wealthy for very long.[...]
>>
> No, the rich make the rules to exploit others - has been so in almost
> every society.
The rich are constantly in danger of losing whatever wealth they have. I
would rather have the few rich making the rules than the great unwashed
proletariat making the rules.
> In the US in recent years, so much wealth has gone to the rich, they have
> a glut of money - much more than is needed for capital investment. So they
> play games on Wall Street [1], put the money in foreign tax shelters, etc.
The thing that matters is that the rest of us have at least enough to live
on and a small surplus too so that we can have some leisure.
> If you want to stimulate the economy, increase the share of the working
> classes, since they will spend most of it and create the demand for
> capital improvement. Tax cuts for the rich in the current environment do
> little to nothing to stimulate the economy, since lack of capital for
> investment is not a problem.
Well, that is what liberal Dems are suppose to be doing, looking after the
working class, but as always they do a poor piss job of everything they lay
their hand to.
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>
>> "We're good, everybody else is bad." That's an underlying belief in
>> almost all religions and most "isms." Maybe not Buddhism.
Tim McNamara could not sum up his own ass!
> That is why I belong to the Church of RANS.
Mr. Sherman, instead of resorting to idiotic quips, needed to answer the
post of AMuzi. But Mr. Sherman is always out to lunch when challenged. It is
ever the hallmark of a coward.
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
<noEmailto...@stillnodomainey.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 20:53:17 -0800 (PST), Ron Wallenfang
>
> <rwallenf...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
> >But I'm not expecting the day to come in my
> >lifetime, when I can bicycle between Mecca and Medina to worship
> >Christ.
>
> pilgrimage through the Holy Lands safe again. I say we deploy the New
> Templars at Tyre, and work from there.
We just launch wars to take back the oil from the infidels. But they
are welcome to work with us.
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
>
> Islam actually does condone terrorism. In fact, it is a religion of war, not
> peace. Anyone but me ever notice how silent the so-called Muslim majority is
> about Muslims killing Christians?
It may be that they are a religion of war and we are a religion of
business.
Edward Dolan
"Peter Cole" <peter...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hi4vqq$civ$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Nonsense! Both AMuzi and I have read the complete Koran in the original
Arabic. Only Mr. Sherman spouts off without ever knowing what he is talking
about.
AMuzi
>> "We're good, everybody else is bad." That's an underlying belief in
>> almost all religions and most "isms." Maybe not Buddhism.
Tom Sherman �_� wrote:
> That is why I belong to the Church of RANS.
Oh yeah?
The Flying Spaghetti Monster thinks you are a heretic!
AMuzi
AMuzi
Sir, do you mean to insult the koran's actual text?
AMuzi
Arabic? Count me out on that one.
Selected english translations only. I'm not a scholar but I
got the general drift of it.
Peter Cole
No, but apparently you do, and our collective intelligence.
Edward Dolan
> AMuzi wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> I'm disappointed that you would cut & paste such propaganda from some
>>> hate-mongering source without vetting it.
>>>
>>> That's low even by the standards of this group.
>>
>> Sir, do you mean to insult the koran's actual text?
>>
>
> No, but apparently you do, and our collective intelligence.
AMuzi gave us an excellent exposition of what is in the Koran. Mr. Sherman
had the brains to withdraw from the field of battle, but here we are, stuck
with an idiot even beyond the standards of these groups. What is he
complaining about! Does he have other sources more correct? If so, let him
show us.
The Koran and Islam are for savages. It all comes right out of the Arabian
peninsula, a land of primitive Arab tribes who have never contributed one
damn thing to civilization. Fuck 'em - and Fuck Peter Cole too!
J Brown
I've read your slurs but no cites.
What english translation of the Quran/Koran have you been reading?
I did a quick check from the bottom - 9:5, 9:28, 9:30 - paraphrased but
seems accurate enough to me.
Example - Here's the above nasty 4:89:
>> 4:89 Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you
>> find them.
Here are 5 translations for this verse. You be the judge.
"4.89": They desire that you should disbelieve as they have
disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from
among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if
they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them,
and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
From
<http://al-quran.info/#&&sura=4&trans=en-shakir&show=both,quran-uthmani&format=rows&ver=1.00>
(89) They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so
that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them
friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn
back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not
from among them a friend or a helper.
From
<http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/004.qmt.html>
004.089
YUSUFALI: They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and
thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their
ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But
if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them;
and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-
PICKTHAL: They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve,
that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them
till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to
enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose
no friend nor helper from among them,
SHAKIR: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved,
so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them
friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn
back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not
from among them a friend or a helper.
Edward Dolan
"J Brown" <joel.2...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4b4685e7$1...@news.x-privat.org...
[...]
Well Hells Bells, it all comes down to the same thing doesn't it. Islam is
an intolerant religion and wants to see all unbelievers dead. That is ever
the religion of savages and barbarians. Sometimes I think the Arabs are
incapable of civilization.
Ron Wallenfang
>
> "4.89": They desire that you should disbelieve as they have
> disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from
> among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if
> they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them,
> and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
>
> From
> (89) They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so
> that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them
> friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn
> back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not
> from among them a friend or a helper.
>
> From
> 004.089
> YUSUFALI: They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and
> thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their
> ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But
> if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them;
> and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-
> PICKTHAL: They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve,
> that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them
> till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to
> enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose
> no friend nor helper from among them,
> SHAKIR: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved,
> so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them
> friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn
> back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree with your conclusion that Andrew has fairly characterized the
verses of the Koran he cited. There were two minor glitches. The
reference to 3.48 probably should have been to 3.148. 4.63 is also
probably an incorrect cite. His selection can be critiqued as, well,
selective, but it's hardly a case of proof-texting, i.e. taking an
isolated verse or phrase and building a major point on nothing more
than that. What he's shown must be some of the major themes of the
Koran, as demonstrated, inter alia, by their sheer multiplicity.
Edward Dolan
"Ron Wallenfang" <rwall...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:42539557-8d60-4984...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> I agree with your conclusion that Andrew has fairly characterized the
verses of the Koran he cited. There were two minor glitches. The
reference to 3.48 probably should have been to 3.148. 4.63 is also
probably an incorrect cite. His selection can be critiqued as, well,
selective, but it's hardly a case of proof-texting, i.e. taking an
isolated verse or phrase and building a major point on nothing more
than that. What he's shown must be some of the major themes of the
Koran, as demonstrated, inter alia, by their sheer multiplicity.
I do admire lawyerly thinking. The rest of these idiots on these newsgroups
seem never to know how to come to a conclusion about anything. But why not
say something about the despicable nature of the Muslim religion.
Intelligence without courage is wasted.
I have got my eye on you and will expect only intelligent posts. See that
you do not disappoint me.
Ron Wallenfang
>
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't think we disagree. The "clash of civilizations" has described
much of history since the 7th Century, though I haven't yet read
Huntington's book, and the Koranic verses you cite tell us why.
But I can dream. After all, much of the Old Testament is hardly more
tolerant; consider, for example the rejection by God of King Saul
because he failed to massacre the inhabitants of the lands he
conquered. But that material remains in the Bible, it is not
normative. As Vatican 2's Constitution on Divine Revelation puts it,
"These [OT] books, though they also contain some things which are
incomplete and temporary, ..........." (Par. 15) And rare indeed is
the Jew who sees accounts like these as models for conduct today.
I'm not ready to write off the chance for Islam to do likewise. Which
in no way reduces our need to act vigilantly today against today's
radical Jihadists.
Is
Edward Dolan
[...]
> I don't think we disagree. The "clash of civilizations" has described
much of history since the 7th Century, though I haven't yet read
Huntington's book, and the Koranic verses you cite tell us why.
> But I can dream. After all, much of the Old Testament is hardly more
tolerant; consider, for example the rejection by God of King Saul
because he failed to massacre the inhabitants of the lands he
conquered. But that material remains in the Bible, it is not
normative. As Vatican 2's Constitution on Divine Revelation puts it,
"These [OT] books, though they also contain some things which are
incomplete and temporary, ..........." (Par. 15) And rare indeed is
the Jew who sees accounts like these as models for conduct today.
Ron, sometimes I think you must be an idiot. All that you cite above is
ancient history and has no relevance for today. Only primitive Muslims ever
reference it.
> I'm not ready to write off the chance for Islam to do likewise. Which
in no way reduces our need to act vigilantly today against today's
radical Jihadists.
The Muslim religion was never reformed like Christianity was. It is as
primitive now as the day it was born. It is a religion for simple mined
people who continue to live in the Middle Ages. The best and only solution
is to kill them before they kill us. Your tolerance will be the death of us
all.
Tim McNamara
<42539557-8d60-4984...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Ron Wallenfang <rwall...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 7:09�pm, J Brown <joel.2whe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Peter Cole wrote:
> > > AMuzi wrote:
> > >> Peter Cole wrote:
> > >>> AMuzi wrote:
<snip>
> > >>>> 4:89 Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the
> > >>>> unbelievers wherever you find them.
<snip>
> I agree with your conclusion that Andrew has fairly characterized the
> verses of the Koran he cited. There were two minor glitches. The
> reference to 3.48 probably should have been to 3.148. 4.63 is also
> probably an incorrect cite. His selection can be critiqued as, well,
> selective, but it's hardly a case of proof-texting, i.e. taking an
> isolated verse or phrase and building a major point on nothing more
> than that. What he's shown must be some of the major themes of the
> Koran, as demonstrated, inter alia, by their sheer multiplicity.
I would say that Andrew's quoted synopsis of 4.89 unfairly characterized
the fuller texts, which refer to killing those converts to Islam who
revert to their old religion. Nasty enough, IMHO, but not an injunction
to randomly kill those who do not believe in Islam.
Most religions contain enough hateful, heinous material in their
scriptures- including Christianity and Judaism- that there's no reason
to modify the quotations to show this. But, because religions are
competitive (especially the Abrahamaic religions), it has been a popular
sport among threatened right-wing Christians to modify Islamic texts to
make them look bad (worse).
There are sociopaths wearing the clothes of all three of these
religions, claiming righteousness while laying waste to their enemies.
Tim McNamara
<cd4a88ca-7f0f-490c...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
Ron Wallenfang <rwall...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
> Regarding the "We're good, everybody else is bad" generalization, may
> I commend to your attention the Vatican 2 documents on ecumenism and
> religious feedom, for official Catholic teaching on those subjects.
The official stance of the Catholic Church is that it is the one true
faith. Accept no substitutes. Heard lots of that stuff in CCD and
Catholic schools. The priests and nuns and brothers were not bashful
about their ecumenical superiority.
> Regarding Islam, Andrew rightly went to the source and laid out many
> citations to the Koran, to help focus the question: To what extent
> do the foundational documents of Islam mandate the agenda of today's
> radical Jahadists?? Or can there be a kinder, gentler Islam??
For that discussion to take place, good translations are necessary for
those of us who speak not the source languages. This seems to be
difficult at times. That's not unique to Islam and the Koran- the Bible
has had centuries of political editing, translation errors both direct
(source languages to English) and cumulative (source languages to
intermediary language(s) to English).
Tim McNamara
<e4061a86-4671-499a...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Ron Wallenfang <rwall...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
> I don't think we disagree. The "clash of civilizations" has
> described much of history since the 7th Century, though I haven't yet
> read Huntington's book, and the Koranic verses you cite tell us why.
Only part of the story. All three of the Abrahamaic religions have
strong tendencies to expansionism which has shaped the cultures in which
they are embedded.
> But I can dream. After all, much of the Old Testament is hardly more
> tolerant; consider, for example the rejection by God of King Saul
> because he failed to massacre the inhabitants of the lands he
> conquered. But that material remains in the Bible, it is not
> normative. As Vatican 2's Constitution on Divine Revelation puts it,
> "These [OT] books, though they also contain some things which are
> incomplete and temporary, ..........." (Par. 15) And rare indeed is
> the Jew who sees accounts like these as models for conduct today.
Or, for that matter, the Jewish scholar who thinks that the material in
the Christian OT can be fruitfully interpreted literally.
> I'm not ready to write off the chance for Islam to do likewise.
> Which in no way reduces our need to act vigilantly today against
> today's radical Jihadists.
Criminals are criminals.
Ron Wallenfang
> >
.>.......why not
> say something about the despicable nature of the Muslim religion.
> Intelligence without courage is wasted.
>
> I have got my eye on you and will expect only intelligent posts. See that
> you do not disappoint me.
>
Sorry to disappoint you so quickly, Ed, but I'm not going there. The
following from the Second Vatican Council is not doctrinal, but sound
advice:
"Alhough in the course of the centuries many quarrels and hostilities
have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this ....Synod urges all
to forget the past and to strive sincerely for mutual understanding."
This was written in 1965, when miltant Islam had not yet emerged from
a comparatively quiescent period dating back roughly to the lifting
of the siege of Vienna in 1683. It looks rather naive today, but eras
come and eras go, and firm resistance to radical Islam (oh, and plus
some Divine assistance) could work wonders. Bush and Ratzinger cannot
match the achievement of Reagan and Wojtyla, but they had a tougher
not to crack, and it may yet happen.
Consider the case of Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Sistani. He's no minor
figure. Shia Islam is hierarchical and he's at the top of the heap in
Iraq. Without ever actively collaborating with the US, he was perhaps
the key to the comparative success of that operation. What he showed
was the ability to see the good as well as the bad in what was to him
the infidel invader, and to make the prudential judgments that
transformed Iraq from a brutal dictatorship run by Sunnis, to a
democracy largely dominated by Shi-ites.
We too need to be able to look behind the Islamic mask, and separate
the Sistanis and Sadats from the Khameinis and Ahmadinejads. While
we're not about to bike ride between Medinah and Mecca, maybe we can
hope someday to go from Beirut to Baghdad.
Edward Dolan
"Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:timmcn-12C2C1....@news-2.mpls.iphouse.net...
[...]
> I would say that Andrew's quoted synopsis of 4.89 unfairly characterized
> the fuller texts, which refer to killing those converts to Islam who
> revert to their old religion. Nasty enough, IMHO, but not an injunction
> to randomly kill those who do not believe in Islam.
>
> Most religions contain enough hateful, heinous material in their
> scriptures- including Christianity and Judaism- that there's no reason
> to modify the quotations to show this. But, because religions are
> competitive (especially the Abrahamaic religions), it has been a popular
> sport among threatened right-wing Christians to modify Islamic texts to
> make them look bad (worse).
>
> There are sociopaths wearing the clothes of all three of these
> religions, claiming righteousness while laying waste to their enemies.
Tim McNamara is one of the most ignorant souls ever to infest these
newsgroups. But he is a Minnesotan and therefore entitled to his stupidity.
After all, Minnesota is the land of Humphrey, Mondale, E. McCarthy and other
assorted liberal idiots.
Not to be able to make discriminations marks you as a liberal asshole. Not
even Tom Sherman would make his mistake. Note how he lumps all religions
together - as though they are all the same. The Muslims of today are into
killing Christians and any others who get in their way. As far as I know, no
Christians or Jews are wantonly killing anyone.
I can only hope a Muslim Jihadist murders Tim McNamara and puts him out of
his misery. We do not need simpletons like him. He would be better off dead.
He has a treasonous nature.
Edward Dolan
> In article
> <e4061a86-4671-499a...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> Ron Wallenfang <rwall...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>> I'm not ready to write off the chance for Islam to do likewise.
>> Which in no way reduces our need to act vigilantly today against
>> today's radical Jihadists.
>
> Criminals are criminals.
Tim, you are too stupid to be believed. The Islamic Jihadists are not
criminals, they are warriors and the sooner we recognize it the better. We
are at war. What is there about this that you do not understand. My god,
your stupidity passes all understanding. I hope that one of these so called
"criminals" puts you out of your misery, you god damn dumb fucking Minnesota
liberal asshole!
Fucking Regards,
Edward Dolan
> In article
> <cd4a88ca-7f0f-490c...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
> Ron Wallenfang <rwall...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Regarding the "We're good, everybody else is bad" generalization, may
>> I commend to your attention the Vatican 2 documents on ecumenism and
>> religious feedom, for official Catholic teaching on those subjects.
>
> The official stance of the Catholic Church is that it is the one true
> faith. Accept no substitutes. Heard lots of that stuff in CCD and
> Catholic schools. The priests and nuns and brothers were not bashful
> about their ecumenical superiority.
And rightfully so. Any other religions you want to compare it to?
>> Regarding Islam, Andrew rightly went to the source and laid out many
>> citations to the Koran, to help focus the question: To what extent
>> do the foundational documents of Islam mandate the agenda of today's
>> radical Jahadists?? Or can there be a kinder, gentler Islam??
>
> For that discussion to take place, good translations are necessary for
> those of us who speak not the source languages. This seems to be
> difficult at times. That's not unique to Islam and the Koran- the Bible
> has had centuries of political editing, translation errors both direct
> (source languages to English) and cumulative (source languages to
> intermediary language(s) to English).
Everyone understands the Koran perfectly. After all it was written by
simpletons for simpletons. But that does not mean Tim McNamara will ever be
able to understand it because he is worse than a simpleton. He is a moron.
Instead of wanting translations which are already numerous, it would be
better to study the history of Islam. It ranks right up there with the
Mongol conquests. Convert or die! That was the watch word of the Arabs as
they spread over the Middle East and North Africa.
Edward Dolan
On Jan 7, 8:07 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> >
.>.......why not
> say something about the despicable nature of the Muslim religion.
> Intelligence without courage is wasted.
>
> I have got my eye on you and will expect only intelligent posts. See that
> you do not disappoint me.
>
>> Sorry to disappoint you so quickly, Ed, but I'm not going there. The
following from the Second Vatican Council is not doctrinal, but sound
advice:
>> "Alhough in the course of the centuries many quarrels and hostilities
have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this ....Synod urges all
to forget the past and to strive sincerely for mutual understanding."
But the Muslims never forget. They are still mired in the Middle Ages.
>> This was written in 1965, when miltant Islam had not yet emerged from
a comparatively quiescent period dating back roughly to the lifting
of the siege of Vienna in 1683. It looks rather naive today, but eras
come and eras go, and firm resistance to radical Islam (oh, and plus
some Divine assistance) could work wonders. Bush and Ratzinger cannot
match the achievement of Reagan and Wojtyla, but they had a tougher
not to crack, and it may yet happen.
Yes, eras do indeed come and go, but in this age of weapons of mass
destruction it may well be the last age if we do not get our heads screwed
on straight.
>> Consider the case of Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Sistani. He's no minor
figure. Shia Islam is hierarchical and he's at the top of the heap in
Iraq. Without ever actively collaborating with the US, he was perhaps
the key to the comparative success of that operation. What he showed
was the ability to see the good as well as the bad in what was to him
the infidel invader, and to make the prudential judgments that
transformed Iraq from a brutal dictatorship run by Sunnis, to a
democracy largely dominated by Shi-ites.
Never trust a Muslim. They hate us and we would be smart to hate them back.
>> We too need to be able to look behind the Islamic mask, and separate
the Sistanis and Sadats from the Khameinis and Ahmadinejads. While
we're not about to bike ride between Medinah and Mecca, maybe we can
hope someday to go from Beirut to Baghdad.
The fact remains that we are at war with Islamic Jihadists. This is not the
time for amelioration and understanding. It is the time to kill the dirty
rotten bastards.
But I just plain do not like anyone of the Islamic religion. They treat
everyone not of their faith badly - and they always have. To equate Islam
with Christianity is a form of insanity.
Peter Cole
The meaning of that single verse, taken out of its context, is
misleading. The intention of "cut & pastes" like the above included by
A. Muzi is to distort and propagandize. Social conservatives often use
religious texts to support their ideologies, often distorting them to
the exact opposite of the original meanings -- a brief survey of history
and/or current events discloses just how commonplace this practice is
and has always been -- like terrorism, hardly unique to Islam. "Gott mit
uns" is a lunacy as old as recorded history.
Here's a more complete text with accompanying commentary:
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/quran_489_commentary/
The commentary is from Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzammil_H._Siddiqi
Siddiqi received the Humanitarian of the Year Award in 1999 from the
National Council of Christians and Jews.
In November 2005, Siddiqi was recognized by Orange County Register as
one of the 100 most influential people who shaped Orange County in the
last twenty five years.
In August 2006, as part of a special feature called "The West 100"[1]
the Los Angeles Times recognized Siddiqi as one of the top 100 most
powerful people in Southern California with the following description:
"Siddiqi, whose mosque is among the largest in North America, is the
religious leader of thousands of Southern California Muslims at a time
when xenophobia is running high. After Sept. 11, the White House invited
him to preside over interfaith services at the National Cathedral. Since
then, he has been a leader in driving home the point that Muslims in the
U.S. are peace-loving."
Jay Beattie
>
> > "4.89": They desire that you should disbelieve as they have
> > disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from
> > among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if
> > they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them,
> > and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
>
> > From
>
> > (89) They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so
> > that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them
> > friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn
> > back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not
> > from among them a friend or a helper.
>
> > From
>
> > 004.089
> > YUSUFALI: They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and
> > thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their
> > ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But
> > if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them;
> > and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-
> > PICKTHAL: They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve,
> > that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them
> > till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to
> > enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose
> > no friend nor helper from among them,
> > SHAKIR: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved,
> > so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them
> > friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn
> > back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not
> > from among them a friend or a helper.
>
> The meaning of that single verse, taken out of its context, is
> misleading. The intention of "cut & pastes" like the above included by
> A. Muzi is to distort and propagandize. Social conservatives often use
> religious texts to support their ideologies, often distorting them to
> the exact opposite of the original meanings -- a brief survey of history
> and/or current events discloses just how commonplace this practice is
> and has always been -- like terrorism, hardly unique to Islam. "Gott mit
> uns" is a lunacy as old as recorded history.
>
>
> The commentary is from Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi.
>
>
> Siddiqi received the Humanitarian of the Year Award in 1999 from the
> National Council of Christians and Jews.
>
> In November 2005, Siddiqi was recognized by Orange County Register as
> one of the 100 most influential people who shaped Orange County in the
> last twenty five years.
>
> In August 2006, as part of a special feature called "The West 100"[1]
> the Los Angeles Times recognized Siddiqi as one of the top 100 most
> powerful people in Southern California with the following description:
> "Siddiqi, whose mosque is among the largest in North America, is the
> religious leader of thousands of Southern California Muslims at a time
> when xenophobia is running high. After Sept. 11, the White House invited
> him to preside over interfaith services at the National Cathedral. Since
> then, he has been a leader in driving home the point that Muslims in the
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank God the Southern California muslims are peace loving. I would
hate for a jihad to break out while I was sun bathing at Santa Monica
beach.-- Jay Beattie.
AMuzi
As any religious work, there are silly passages:
http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/noahs_insobriety/gn09_20.html
and then there are scary ones.
andre...@aol.com
Dude, I love this Lego Bible. With the proper Lego sets, any child can
become a bible scholar. Also, by redoing the landscapes and such you
can come up with multiple interpretations like Kierkegaard and
Kazantzakis.
One set could show Abraham actually killing his son and the other can
have Jesus marrying Mary Magdalene.
AMuzi
> AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
-snip koran-
>> As any religious work, there are silly passages:
>> http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/noahs_insobriety/gn09_20.html
>> and then there are scary ones.
andre...@aol.com wrote:
> Dude, I love this Lego Bible. With the proper Lego sets, any child can
> become a bible scholar. Also, by redoing the landscapes and such you
> can come up with multiple interpretations like Kierkegaard and
> Kazantzakis.
> One set could show Abraham actually killing his son and the other can
> have Jesus marrying Mary Magdalene.
I have to credit Tom Sherman who first showed me that site.
My friend who attends torah study weekly finds it hilarious.
Tom Sherman °_°
> "Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
> news:hi3cbd$u58$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> "Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
>>> news:hi1h08$mnb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> [...]
>>>> Here is more realistic scenario - go to a $50K/year prep school, get a
>>>> legacy admission to an Ivy League school, get the best internships from
>>>> friends of the family, go from graduation into a management career
>>>> track, do well because you know all the right people, get paid millions
>>>> for doing a mediocre job of upper management.
>>> Mr. Sherman reminds me of the poor little boy (a la Charles Dickens)
>>> looking from the cold outside into a warm room at the well off and dying
>>> of envy.
>> Mr. Dolan confuses envy with moral disgust. I would not want to be rich at
>> the price of immorally exploiting others.
>
> No one in this day and age has "moral disgust", but as far as I can see
> almost everyone has lots and lots of envy. Is Wal-Mart exploiting anyone? I
> say no since they employ unskilled labor. Most of those folks who work at
> Wal-Mart are lucky to have a job at all.
>
The labor market has been deliberately distorted to create unemployment.
The rich generally think unemployment is good, as it helps to control
the proletariat.
>>> But why? They are few in number and have their own crosses to bear. Does
>>> anyone here envy the life of Jack Kennedy for instance?
>>>
>> He had the choice of changing his name to John Doe and living a private
>> life. Most people in the world have very limited opportunities.
>
> But you would not want to have lived his life even so. Nor would I.
>
>>> It is a full time job for the rich to hang onto their wealth since others
>>> are always trying to take it away from them. They must invest their
>>> wealth and put it to work in the society at large. If they don't do that,
>>> they will not be wealthy for very long.[...]
>>>
>> No, the rich make the rules to exploit others - has been so in almost
>> every society.
>
> The rich are constantly in danger of losing whatever wealth they have. I
> would rather have the few rich making the rules than the great unwashed
> proletariat making the rules.
>
The purpose of most governments is to protect the ill-gotten gains of
the rich. This is a form of socialism for the wealthiest 1%.
>> In the US in recent years, so much wealth has gone to the rich, they have
>> a glut of money - much more than is needed for capital investment. So they
>> play games on Wall Street [1], put the money in foreign tax shelters, etc.
>
> The thing that matters is that the rest of us have at least enough to live
> on and a small surplus too so that we can have some leisure.
>
Even that is too much for those who wish to reintroduce the feudal
system. Did the serfs have a small surplus and leisure?
>> If you want to stimulate the economy, increase the share of the working
>> classes, since they will spend most of it and create the demand for
>> capital improvement. Tax cuts for the rich in the current environment do
>> little to nothing to stimulate the economy, since lack of capital for
>> investment is not a problem.
>
> Well, that is what liberal Dems are suppose to be doing, looking after the
> working class, but as always they do a poor piss job of everything they lay
> their hand to.
>
The Dimocrats (sic) are on the corporate payroll, just like the
Repugnicans (sic).
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
"The last 35 years may have been a bad time to be an ordinary
American, but the elite has seen their wealth and income soar
to levels even greater than the gilded age. The rich, in
America, have never, ever, been as rich as they are now."
- Ian Welsh
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> But I can dream. After all, much of the Old Testament is hardly more
> tolerant; consider, for example the rejection by God of King Saul
> because he failed to massacre the inhabitants of the lands he
> conquered. But that material remains in the Bible, it is not
> normative. As Vatican 2's Constitution on Divine Revelation puts it,
> "These [OT] books, though they also contain some things which are
> incomplete and temporary, ..........." (Par. 15) And rare indeed is
> the Jew who sees accounts like these as models for conduct today.
>
no problem with slaughtering Arabs at random. Just like many of the
European immigrants to the Western Hemisphere had no problem with
slaughtering the indigenous peoples.
<http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/>
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> But I just plain do not like anyone of the Islamic religion. They treat
> everyone not of their faith badly - and they always have. To equate Islam
Ed shows his ignorance of what a modern society with a majority Islamic
population (e.g. Malaysia) can be like.