God NO!!! Not another side.
F.H.
>
> http://www.getusout.org/un/articles/veterans.htm
Veterans Remember UN Betrayals
by William F. Jasper
William F. Jasper: Senior Editor of THE NEW AMERICAN
David M
> http://www.getusout.org/un/articles/veterans.htm
"We kicked the enemy clear out of Korea but then, to satisfy the
UN, we turned around and allowed them [the Communists] to come
back and take over the North."
He says he was there, but it seems odd he doesn't seem to
remember all those Chinese who damn near pushed clear off the
peninsula. Maybe he should watch some MASH reruns.
F.H.
Bias? Ideologue?
Mark Warner
> appeared it was a major set back and damn near pushed the "UN" forces
> into the sea. But Big Mac turned things around and wound up at the
> Manchurian border.
My dad was in Korea. Been cussin' Truman ever since for not lettin' us
"finish the job."
--
Mark Warner
lose .inhibitions when replying
F.H.
>
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 02:22:00 GMT, "F.H."
> <disconne...@chimplinkxxx.net> wrote:
>
> >GaryE wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:18:10 GMT, "F.H."
> >> <disconne...@chimplinkxxx.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >GaryE wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.getusout.org/un/articles/veterans.htm
> >> >
> >> >Veterans Remember UN Betrayals
> >> >by William F. Jasper
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >William F. Jasper: Senior Editor of THE NEW AMERICAN
> >> >
> >> >http://www.thenewamerican.com/
> >>
> >> ????? and.........????
> >
> >Bias? Ideologue?
>
LOL, of course. I just thought "another" meant something other than the
prevailing stream of consciousness that I hear surfing the channels.
SHARX.
A few nukes would have done it. Why, so often, do the American people hobble
their leaders by not supporting them until the war in question is completed?
Perhaps information SHOULD be throttled during war time as the opposition
simply uses it to demoralize the armed forces and their supporters.
Kai
> GaryE wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 02:22:00 GMT, "F.H."
>><disconne...@chimplinkxxx.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>GaryE wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:18:10 GMT, "F.H."
>>>><disconne...@chimplinkxxx.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>GaryE wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.getusout.org/un/articles/veterans.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>Veterans Remember UN Betrayals
>>>>>by William F. Jasper
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>William F. Jasper: Senior Editor of THE NEW AMERICAN
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.thenewamerican.com/
>>>>
>>>>????? and.........????
>>>
>>>Bias? Ideologue?
>>
>>Would the pot be calling the kettle black?
>
>
> LOL, of course. I just thought "another" meant something other than the
> prevailing stream of consciousness that I hear surfing the channels.
Did you notice the veteran "telling the truth" is a proud member of
the John Birch Society? How much more unbiased can you get?
"Less Government, More Responsibility, and – With God’s Help – a
Better World."
But hey, Gary, you're right. Because American soldiers died in the
Korea in the 1950's, you should just stop all that international
co-operation bullshit and act unilaterally. After all, the UN is and
does nothing but war and peacekeeping missions, right?
--
Kai
"Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines."
- General "Buck" Turgidson -
Robert McGregor
"GaryE" <garyexx...@nadaswbell.net> wrote in message
news:gs79301qnfbd22bso...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:44:16 +0200, Kai <sob...@nospamo.luukku.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >But hey, Gary, you're right. Because American soldiers died in the
> >Korea in the 1950's, you should just stop all that international
> >co-operation bullshit and act unilaterally. After all, the UN is
and
> >does nothing but war and peacekeeping missions, right?
>
you
> seriously except another anti US basher? You twist reality and
> history to your attitude ignoring context and reality. You are
> probably sitting around saying to yourself how brilliant you are
with
> absurd remarks like above. Frankly I don't know much about Korea.
I
> was a child at the time and read about it in the papers and through
> some eyes of Truman biographers a long time ago.
>
> I keep an open mind because I was educated to look at multiple
points
> of view and to appreciate the intellectual problems associated with
> trying to simplify and label history and politics. Rarely do human
> events lend themselves to easy interpretation. I am opposed to war,
> for example, as most folks are. I am opposed to regimes which murder
> people and bury them in mass graves. Republican tendencies to use
the
> military also trouble me a great deal. But people who virtually
ignore
> murder and atrocities trouble me too. I still don't have a good
> answer (for myself anyway) as to why killing your opponents is the
> answer. If they are trying to kill you, I guess that's one thing.
> Beyond that, I don't' know. If I, as an individual, saw a known
> rapist/felon lurking near my 3 year old grand daughter, what would I
> do? And what would I do if my 3 year old grand daughter was raped
and
> killed and I came face to face with the person who did it? I know I
> would give my own life to preserve hers. Would I take another in
> revenge, in 'justice'? Does someone else's grand daughter change my
> perspective? Does the answer to that question tell me something
about
> the kind of person I am? Am I the kind of person I want to be?
>
> To me, those personal tensions and difficult questions roll up
> somewhat into similar, though not the same questions, between
people.
> I am opposed to murder and rape. That is settled. Do I kill other
> people because of that? No. The government does that, we all hope
in
> justice. I can keep the high road so far. But what if its my
> granddaughter? I can only tell you this. I am capable of killing
> anyone who harms my granddaughter. That is about as simple as I can
> make this value judgment and its not simple for me.
>
> I think, however, the deed is done. What now, my love? The
Korean
> War is long over and the article I ran across I linked here was to
> simply make the point that there is no single point of view. It
> wasn't about credentials as my friend Frank was so eager to jump on.
> Grace and Lech seem to think that if you list events in history, you
> can prove something to the vast US conspiracy to rule the world as
if
> successive governments in this country, all of them apparently, are
> engaged in a common quest for empire. That's the impression I get
> anyway. And maybe all of you are actually not as fanatical and
> extreme as you seem to be. And maybe you are. Extremism is also
> anathema to me personally.
>
> Folks who do try to simplify and characterize things in a single
> light are anathema to my way of thinking. Why waste time reading
> history if all you want to do is place a single interpretation on
it?
> I don't think your attitude accomplishes much of anything but maybe
> you don't care about that. Maybe you just have a hate so bad that
you
> have to act it out at every opportunity. I was exposed to fanatical
> type of thinking while I was growing up and it never solved a
problem.
> Created quite a few, never solved one. You and a slim minority
here
> are, however, proof that the BB link between resentments and
drinking
> is false. It appears to me that US bashers take resentments to new
> heights and I assume that you don't drink over them, so your
> contribution to debunking some of the things in the BB is noted.
>
"GaryE" <garye...@nadaswbell.net> wrote in message
news:8aa0305v4cin2rqh4...@4ax.com...
>
>
> >
> If you don't like it, must be something wrong with the other
> person? That's your level of maturity? Kids do that stuff. Kids
> don't know how to say, "I disagree".
Kai
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:44:16 +0200, Kai <sob...@nospamo.luukku.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>But hey, Gary, you're right. Because American soldiers died in the
>>Korea in the 1950's, you should just stop all that international
>>co-operation bullshit and act unilaterally. After all, the UN is and
>>does nothing but war and peacekeeping missions, right?
>
>
> Kai, your attitude is simply anti American. Why would anyone take you
> seriously except another anti US basher?
So I'm anti-US because, well, because you say so and therefore no one
should take anything I say seriously, but you post a link to John
Birch Society member's opinions on a highly biased website expecting
everyone to take his sayings seriously? You just can't have it both
ways, Gary.
> You twist reality and
> history to your attitude ignoring context and reality.
Care to give an example of this, Gary? It should be easy, all my posts
are on the Google Groups.
<snip>
>
> Folks who do try to simplify and characterize things in a single
> light are anathema to my way of thinking. Why waste time reading
> history if all you want to do is place a single interpretation on it?
> I don't think your attitude accomplishes much of anything but maybe
> you don't care about that. Maybe you just have a hate so bad that you
> have to act it out at every opportunity. I was exposed to fanatical
> type of thinking while I was growing up and it never solved a problem.
> Created quite a few, never solved one. You and a slim minority here
> are, however, proof that the BB link between resentments and drinking
> is false.
Thanks you, Thumper.
> It appears to me that US bashers take resentments to new
> heights and I assume that you don't drink over them, so your
> contribution to debunking some of the things in the BB is noted.
It may well appear so to you, because you are a devoted follower of
the Church of the Rightful USA. You just cannot even comprehend the
idea that some things your country has done/does may actually be
imperfect, or even just plain wrong and that given the relative power
and weight of your country, it's actions must also be under closer
scrutiny than those of, say, Finland.
You dismiss any and every information you don't like as "false",
"biased" or "meaningless in the Grand Scale of Things". The people who
disagree with you are "fanatics", of course. How else could it be?
F.H.
> I think, however, the deed is done. What now, my love? The Korean
> War is long over and the article I ran across I linked here was to
> simply make the point that there is no single point of view. It
> wasn't about credentials as my friend Frank was so eager to jump on.
LOL, I wasn't thinking credentials Gar, I was just struck that this was
the line of thinking of the current neo-cons. One of the first spirited
political arguments I ever heard was at my first job in a machine shop
and it centered around the UN and the John Birch Society. I had no idea
what the JB society was. Wasn't interested either but guys yelling at
each other at lunch time caused it to stick I guess.
> Grace and Lech seem to think that if you list events in history, you
> can prove something to the vast US conspiracy to rule the world as if
> successive governments in this country, all of them apparently, are
> engaged in a common quest for empire. That's the impression I get
> anyway.
I think a reasonable person could find plenty of reasons to think in
terms of quest for empire. Are we environmentally preprogrammed to lean
in that direction? I suspect so. Distrust and suspicion of authority,
(resentment) goes back a long ways with me. Alcoholic father. Typical
alcoholic family. Unfair, unpredictable, shaming.
> And maybe all of you are actually not as fanatical and
> extreme as you seem to be. And maybe you are.
Shortcoming of this format.
> Extremism is also anathema to me personally.
And for me. That's what makes me so nervous about this current group of
power brokers. Extreme on foreign policy, economics, health care,
religion. Each case following a clear ideology.
> Folks who do try to simplify and characterize things in a single
> light are anathema to my way of thinking. Why waste time reading
> history if all you want to do is place a single interpretation on it?
My take is that the most outspoken interpreters of history at this time
are into major revisions of what I had been taught. About what's good
about this country. About FDR. I try to be open but hell, we all lean
toward what just seems to make sense to us. People like Hannity
etc..telling me how it is and how it was makes me anxious.
> I was exposed to fanatical type of thinking while I was growing up and
> it never solved a problem. Created quite a few, never solved one.
There ya go. Thanks Gar.
Frank
Lech K. Lesiak
> Kai, your attitude is simply anti American. Why would anyone take you
> seriously except another anti US basher? You twist reality and
Nah. Kai is pretty much in the same ballpark I play in. He's not
anti-American, just a realist who knows the history of US adventurism
around the world.
Opposing US policy doesn't make one anti-American.
I oppose French nuclear testing in the South Pacific. Does that make me
anti-French?
Cheers,
Lech
tALLDOUB...@stny.rr.com
>
>
> A few nukes would have done it. Why, so often, do the American people hobble
> their leaders by not supporting them until the war in question is completed?
> Perhaps information SHOULD be throttled during war time as the opposition
> simply uses it to demoralize the armed forces and their supporters.
>
>
>
Hear that? Thas' the sound of one mind boggling.....
Grace Hague
(in message <gs79301qnfbd22bso...@4ax.com>):
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:44:16 +0200, Kai <sob...@nospamo.luukku.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> But hey, Gary, you're right. Because American soldiers died in the
>> Korea in the 1950's, you should just stop all that international
>> co-operation bullshit and act unilaterally. After all, the UN is and
>> does nothing but war and peacekeeping missions, right?
>
> Kai, your attitude is simply anti American. Why would anyone take you
> seriously except another anti US basher? You twist reality and
> history to your attitude ignoring context and reality. You are
> probably sitting around saying to yourself how brilliant you are with
> absurd remarks like above. Frankly I don't know much about Korea. I
> was a child at the time and read about it in the papers and through
> some eyes of Truman biographers a long time ago.
That is ridiculous, Gary. Criticizing US policy does not make someone
anti-US. That's a trick the Bushites and the talk radio boobs like to
perpetuate; I thought you were better than that. In fact, many of us consider
criticism of our government to be the highest form of patriotism because it
operates on an assumption that the US was founded on higher principles than
that of imperialism, unilateral military actions, and aggressions against
small countries that can't defend themselves against a major world power.
Since Kai is not as subject to the propaganda most of us un the US have been
spoonfed, I suggest that he has a clearer idea about US foreign policy than
that of most Americans.
You might try reading Howard Zinn's "Peoples History of the United States" or
just about anything by Noam Chomsky. That might give you another persoective.
Grace
David M
> David M wrote:
>>> http://www.getusout.org/un/articles/veterans.htm
> Even my memory is better than that David. When the
> Chinese first appeared it was a major set back and damn
> near pushed the "UN" forces into the sea. But Big Mac
> turned things around and wound up at the Manchurian
> border.
We must be remembering different wars, Gary. The North Koreans
almost pushed us out the first time largely by themselves.
MacArthur managed to hold on and was slowly but successfully
slogging north. The Chinese didn't appear in force until after
MacArthur attempted to win the war quickly by making an
amphibious end run to the Manchurian border. When they did come
in, the Chinese pushed us back again -- though not as far this
time. Three years of bloody stalemate followed.
After the slaughter at Inchon, Big Mac wanted to end the war by
nuking the Chinese. Harry Truman wouldn't let him.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?E5FE12577
Tex
<garyexx...@nadaswbell.net> wrote:
> I am capable of killing
>anyone who harms my granddaughter. That is about as simple as I can
>make this value judgment and its not simple for me.
I know I shouldn't touch this one....but what the hell I go back to
work tomorrow.
My first reaction to this is...(probably got it all out of context
too)...is..What about you Daughter, Son, or Wife? Do we as individuals
need to find a reason for the rationalization & justification or can
we find thru the rationalization & justification a reason? Is being
capable of killing at our inner core? Waiting only for the reason or
proper R& J to throw the switch?
Then as individuals do we then herd up grouping into social pastures
with a collective capablities to kill...waiting only for the proper
rationalization or justification or reason to find such to throw the
switch?
The question comes to mind...are there really individuals incapable of
killing? That have no switch to be thrown, regardless of the
justification, rationalization or reason?
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Tex
<garyexx...@nadaswbell.net> wrote:
>Sigh. I'm from Backwater, Arkansas?
I know it's a personal deal....Did you ever fuck a chicken or git a
blowjob? I realize some have had both but it seems to me the
intelligent ones settled for the BJ...one even became Prez...jeeze
think of the scandal it would have been if he had been a dummy from
Arkansas and been fucking chickens in the Oval Office!
F.H.
>
> GaryE wrote:
>
> >Sigh. I'm from Backwater, Arkansas?
>
> I know it's a personal deal....Did you ever fuck a chicken or git a
> blowjob? I realize some have had both but it seems to me the
> intelligent ones settled for the BJ...one even became Prez...jeeze
> think of the scandal it would have been if he had been a dummy from
> Arkansas and been fucking chickens in the Oval Office!
Knock this shit off will ya. Got to laughing so hard I had to reach for
my wheezer meds.
Huff n Puff
SHARX.
I wouldn't lecture Gary when YOU defend your country, Finland, allying
itself with NAZI Germany.
SHARX.
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, GaryE wrote:
>
>> Kai, your attitude is simply anti American. Why would anyone take
>> you seriously except another anti US basher? You twist reality and
>
> Nah. Kai is pretty much in the same ballpark I play in. He's not
> anti-American, just a realist who knows the history of US adventurism
> around the world.
Your use of the word "adventurism" says it all. Use of pejorative indicates
ANTI status.
SHARX.
What are you talking about? Kai, in Europe, is subject to all sorts of
anti-U.S. b.s.. I'll trust North American media before that jaded, statist
European stuff. The BBC as already been outted as being corrupt.
SHARX.
It WAS meant to be provocative.
SHARX.
Grace Hague
(in message <hk0a30lah58mrh8k9...@4ax.com>):
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:33:10 -0600, GaryE
> <garyexx...@nadaswbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Sigh. I'm from Backwater, Arkansas?
>
> I know it's a personal deal....Did you ever fuck a chicken or git a
> blowjob? I realize some have had both but it seems to me the
> intelligent ones settled for the BJ...one even became Prez...jeeze
> think of the scandal it would have been if he had been a dummy from
> Arkansas and been fucking chickens in the Oval Office!
>
So - do ya think that's what GWB has been up to??????
Grace
Grace Hague
(in message <60u93058ftibofi3l...@4ax.com>):
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 6:39:21 -0800, Grace Hague <gra...@spiritone.com>
> wrote:
>
>> and through
>>> some eyes of Truman biographers a long time ago.
>>
>> That is ridiculous, Gary. Criticizing US policy does not make someone
>> anti-US. That's a trick the Bushites and the talk radio boobs like to
>> perpetuate; I thought you were better than that.
>
> Damn Grace, you were complaining to me about condescension?
It certainly wasn't my intent to condescend to you, Gary, I saw your reply to
Kai and you said straight out that he's anti-US because he criticizes US
foreign policy. Hell, probably more than 3/4 of the world is anti-US and for
good reason - which a number of us have tried to elucidate to you.
>
>>
>> You might try reading Howard Zinn's "Peoples History of the United States"
>> or
>> just about anything by Noam Chomsky. That might give you another
>> persoective.
>
> Oh hell, Grace, I'm not a John Bircher. I didn't even know that
> article was done by a Bircher. I just ran across it on Google and
> popped it out here and got 'the attack dogs' going on me. I should be more
careful.
Maybe. I lived in this little hick town in Maine when I was a kid and the
Birchers pretty much took over the school board back in the 60's, Scary
bunch. It wasn't much fun to be labeled a 15 year old Commie because I
opposed the Vietnam war. Its strange to see similar mindless flagwaving all
in the name of "fighting terrorism". Can't we fight terrorism and not be
idiots about it? Feels like deja vu all over again, Gary.
Grace
>
SHARX.
AH...I was going to say something...but why prolong the acrimony?
SHARX.
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 10:01:45 -0800, GaryE wrote
> (in message <60u93058ftibofi3l...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 6:39:21 -0800, Grace Hague <gra...@spiritone.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> and through
>>>> some eyes of Truman biographers a long time ago.
>>>
>>> That is ridiculous, Gary. Criticizing US policy does not make
>>> someone anti-US. That's a trick the Bushites and the talk radio
>>> boobs like to perpetuate; I thought you were better than that.
>>
>> Damn Grace, you were complaining to me about condescension?
>
>
> It certainly wasn't my intent to condescend to you, Gary, I saw your
> reply to Kai and you said straight out that he's anti-US because he
> criticizes US foreign policy. Hell, probably more than 3/4 of the
> world is anti-US and for good reason - which a number of us have
> tried to elucidate to you.
I don't care if 99% of the world is anti-US. I am one Canadian who is not
overcome with envy and jealousy of Uncle Sam. When the U.S. went into
Afghanistary, Iraq, and earlier, into Serbia, they were doing the RIGHT
think, even though unpopular in some quarters. I have no respect for
uneducated, ill-based opinions of those who continually carp away at the
U.S. for doing something, sometimes to make to world a better place. A pox
on the liberals and other isolationists who live far away from reality. Life
is REAL, not what you might WANT it to me. Feelings are secondary. FACTS
count.
Grace Hague
(in message <l9ha30h7an2jhlf1n...@4ax.com>):
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:28:35 -0800, Grace Hague <gra...@spiritone.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> It certainly wasn't my intent to condescend to you, Gary, I saw your reply
>> to
>> Kai and you said straight out that he's anti-US because he criticizes US
>> foreign policy. Hell, probably more than 3/4 of the world is anti-US and
>> for
>> good reason - which a number of us have tried to elucidate to you.
>
> I guess I'm just not as bright as you guys. Thanks for trying to
> teach me the truth....errr...I mean 'elucidate me.'
>
>>
>> Maybe. I lived in this little hick town in Maine when I was a kid and the
>> Birchers pretty much took over the school board back in the 60's, Scary
>> bunch. It wasn't much fun to be labeled a 15 year old Commie because I
>> opposed the Vietnam war. Its strange to see similar mindless flagwaving
>> all
>> in the name of "fighting terrorism". Can't we fight terrorism and not be
>> idiots about it? Feels like deja vu all over again, Gary.
>
> So you're saying that people who don't see it the way you do are
> idiots?
I'm not gonna dignify that, Gary. I realize that this is a tactic you use to
deflect argument, and I refuse to go down that road.
>
> FWIW. An old axiom. It is axiomatic that fanatics and extremists
> will consider even moderation as opposition and all opposition as
> flawed characters or stupid. Know you aren't an extremist or fanatic,
> that you are well, more than mainstream with 3/4's of the world in
> your corner as "anti US" (That's what you wrote up there). But Kai
> protested he wasn't anti US. So he's in the 1/4 that I'm in?
Who said I am anti-US? Didn't I write earlier that being critical of US
policy does not equate to being anti-US. I think you are being a tad
passive-aggressive, Gary.
Grace
>
SHARX.
Projection. Transference.
Lech K. Lesiak
> I seriously doubt that but you can believe what you like. It takes
> more than an 'outsider' unless you figure we're all brainwashed? I'm
Not all. But kindly explain why half the US population believed Iraq was
directly involved in the WTC inident despite the complete absence of any
evidence?
Cheers,
Lech
Lech K. Lesiak
> I guess I'm just not as bright as you guys. Thanks for trying to
> teach me the truth....errr...I mean 'elucidate me.'
I think you are. I just don't understand why you don't address points
raised directly and succinctly.
Why the wordy avoidance of the issue?
Cheers,
Lech
Grace Hague
(in message <cgoa30h2vp6jg3pjn...@4ax.com>):
>>
> It's not a matter of your high road dignification Grace. You used the
> term idiots. Weaseling is what I see.
When people say that dissent against USian policies is the equivalent to
supporting the Commies or the Terrorists, that is an idiotic argument. The
Birchers used that scare tactic to fight anyone they disagreed with. Didn't
the current "resident" do the same - "If you aren't with us, you're against
us". Sorry if that offends you, Gary, but I like to call 'em as I sees 'em.
>>> FWIW. An old axiom. It is axiomatic that fanatics and extremists
>>> will consider even moderation as opposition and all opposition as
>>> flawed characters or stupid. Know you aren't an extremist or fanatic,
>>> that you are well, more than mainstream with 3/4's of the world in
>>> your corner as "anti US" (That's what you wrote up there). But Kai
>>> protested he wasn't anti US. So he's in the 1/4 that I'm in?
>>
>> Who said I am anti-US? Didn't I write earlier that being critical of US
>> policy does not equate to being anti-US. I think you are being a tad
>> passive-aggressive, Gary.
>
> You said 3/4's of the world are anti US. You still didn't supply me
> with where you got that information. It's newsworthy and if I were in
> a political campaign on the Democrat side, I would have that plastered
> all over the place. I just figured you counted yourself in that
> 3/4. But since you don't agree with what I say, then I'm passive-
> aggressive? I don't even know what it means but it sounds like a
> character defect. Is it really that difficult for you to deal with
> disagreement without labeling someone with personal deficiencies??
Of course its possible, when its a principled discussion, but you appear to
be incapable of that, Gary. I am pointing out my observations about your
style of argument. Sorry you can't deal with it.
Grace.
>
> Best,
> GaryE
Grace Hague
(in message <Pine.A41.4.05.104021...@srv1.calcna.ab.ca>):
Because their fearless leader said so.
Grace
Grace Hague
(in message <Pine.A41.4.05.104021...@srv1.calcna.ab.ca>):
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, GaryE wrote:
I think its because he buys into the Bircher argument, but is embarrassed to
admit it. Gary likes to present himself as an iconoclast who questions
conventional wisdom. In his heart of hearts though, he is right out of a
Sinclair Lewis novel - conformist, small-town America. America - Love it or
Leave it! My Country, Right or Wrong! I'll bet during the Vietnam era he
even beat up a hippie or two.
Grace
F.H.
>
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:06:04 -0800, Grace Hague <gra...@spiritone.com>
> wrote:
>
> >ciencies??
> >
> >Of course its possible, when its a principled discussion, but you appear to
> >be incapable of that, Gary. I am pointing out my observations about your
> >style of argument. Sorry you can't deal with it.
> >
>
> That's you level of argument and it speaks for your integrity. Don't
> cross a fanatic like you, right?
>
> Garbaby
Anyone remember the number of facial expressions that we humans have at
our disposal in order to better communicate? Then there's body
language, like a shrug etc. Trying to have a friendly exchange of ideas
on Usenet is like walking through a friggin mine field. We are reduced
to *one* method of communicating and even fairly routine topics can
degenerate quickly into a slugfest. Having an invisible audience doesn't
help at all either for a bunch of drunks. <G>
I've seen several examples today of things said that got the worst of
several possible interpretations, none of which would have happened over
lunch when we have a shrug, eye roll, chuckle or evil grin to go along
with our outgoing pleasant demeanor.:))
Sometimes we need to count to ten and start over, unless of course the
$#@&*&^%$#(*%^&$# just ain't worth the trouble. Fortunately, there
aren't' many of those here.
Gramps
The best mental exercise for relinquishing egotism is contemplating
impermanence.
Dogen
Craig S.
news:40358A97...@chimplinkxxx.net...
> evil grin to go along
> with our outgoing pleasant demeanor.:))
Evil grins are a given in my posts.
Speaking of evil grins, I had a terrific idea on getting some press and
stirring up the neighbors. If only there weren't so many damn trees in the
way. See, around here there are a number of large, lighted crosses visible
from the interstate - just a friendly reminder I suppose of - I don't know -
nailing people to crosses. So I was thinking of how something like that
might be countered. And I thought of a giant lighted devil's face with
pointy hairline, pointy goatee and of course, prominent horns. That would
probably get the cross erectors up in arms. And the back of my house is
even visible from the interstate!
Now the hard part is overcoming two major obstacles. First are the trees I
mentioned that would block the view. The easy solution would be to just
whack them down - except they aren't on my lot. The second hurdle would be
getting it past my wife. Hmm, this one requires some thoughtful study.
Grace Hague
(in message <ptva309pm6ajig53f...@4ax.com>):
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:06:04 -0800, Grace Hague <gra...@spiritone.com>
> wrote:
>
>> ciencies??
>>
>> Of course its possible, when its a principled discussion, but you appear
>> to
>> be incapable of that, Gary. I am pointing out my observations about your
>> style of argument. Sorry you can't deal with it.
>>
>
> Of course anyone who takes you to the task is 'incapable' Grace.
> That's you level of argument and it speaks for your integrity. Don't
> cross a fanatic like you, right?
>
> Garbaby
Oh Waaaaaa!
Grace
Grace Hague
(in message <7nva30903mr6pgujq...@4ax.com>):
>
> You got no boundaries have you. When someone disagrees, it's down and
> dirty innuendo, slander. You been bashing US for as long as I can
> remember and when you get called on it, you get disengenuous and
> claim, 'oh my just criticizing some US foreign policy..what's wrong
> with that." You walk like a duck, you talk like a duck. And your
> knee jerk reaction is always to the low road..."I'll bet..he even beat
> up a hippie.." Jesus Christ, you are cornered aren't you rat?
>
> Garbaby
Hahahaha!
Grace
Lech K. Lesiak
> >
>
> brainwashed. Well, hell Lech, we need guys like you to straighten us
> out. Lucky we found you on an AA newsgroup. I'll pass the word
> around.
Gary, if you are simply going to dodge a direct question via ad hominem,
don't waste the bandwidth.
You're not going to hurt my feelings, and it certainly does nothing for
your position.
Cheers,
Lech
SHARX.
Let's put it ANOTHER way. Half the US population believed Iraq was NOT
directly involved in the WTC incident despite the complete absence of any
evidence.
SHARX.
What "fearless" leaders do the liberal isolationists have? Answer: NONE.
SHARX.
Most hippies as I remember were far more interested in sex and drugs than in
world peace. Not that there was anything the matter with sex, drugs and rock
n roll, though.
SHARX.
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:23:44 -0800, Grace Hague <gra...@spiritone.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I think its because he buys into the Bircher argument, but is
>> embarrassed to admit it. Gary likes to present himself as an
>> iconoclast who questions conventional wisdom. In his heart of hearts
>> though, he is right out of a Sinclair Lewis novel - conformist,
>> small-town America. America - Love it or Leave it! My Country, Right
>> or Wrong! I'll bet during the Vietnam era he even beat up a hippie
>> or two.
>
> dirty innuendo, slander. You been bashing US for as long as I can
> remember and when you get called on it, you get disengenuous and
> claim, 'oh my just criticizing some US foreign policy..what's wrong
> with that." You walk like a duck, you talk like a duck. And your
> knee jerk reaction is always to the low road..."I'll bet..he even beat
> up a hippie.." Jesus Christ, you are cornered aren't you rat?
>
> Garbaby
Gary, they are typical liberals, blinded to reality by their rose-coloured
glasses, into believing that everything is the U.S.'s fault.
SHARX.
You don't have the experience, education or intelligence to comment on
historical or political matters, Grace. Stick with program stuff, please.
Besides a seeming inability to accept much on faith, we often found
ourselves handicapped by obstinacy, sensitiveness, and unreasoning
prejudice. Many of us have been so touchy that even casual reference
to spiritual things make us bristle with antagonism. This sort of
thinking had to be abandoned. Though some of us resisted, we found
no great difficulty in casting aside such feelings. Faced with
alcoholic destruction, we soon became as open minded on spiritual
matters as we had tried to be on other questions. In this respect
alcohol was a great persuader. It finally beat us into a state of
reasonableness."
~Alcoholics Anonymous, 4th Edition, We Agnostics, pg. 47~
>
>>
>> Best,
>> GaryE
Kai
>
> I wouldn't lecture Gary when YOU defend your country, Finland, allying
> itself with NAZI Germany.
>
Shut up already, you idiot. Go back to defending your right to own and
distribute child pornography or something.
--
Kai
"Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines."
- General "Buck" Turgidson -
SHARX.
> SHARX. wrote:
>
>>
>> I wouldn't lecture Gary when YOU defend your country, Finland,
>> allying itself with NAZI Germany.
>>
>
> Shut up already, you idiot. Go back to defending your right to own and
> distribute child pornography or something.
I was, I recall, defending the right of the PRIVATE user to download
anything they want to, onto their PRIVATE computer, as long as hacking
wasn't involved.
By the tone of Kai's reaction, it's obvious I struck close to the truth of
the matter.
Kai
Well, he could use it as a showel and dig even further.
Lech K. Lesiak
> > with that." You walk like a duck, you talk like a duck. And your
> > knee jerk reaction is always to the low road..."I'll bet..he even beat
> > up a hippie.." Jesus Christ, you are cornered aren't you rat?
And your mother wears army boots.
Cheers,
Lt Lech
SHARX.
> Lech K. Lesiak wrote:
>
>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, GaryE wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> So this poll (?) tells you that half the people in the US are
>>> brainwashed. Well, hell Lech, we need guys like you to straighten
>>> us out. Lucky we found you on an AA newsgroup. I'll pass the word
>>> around.
>>
>>
>> Gary, if you are simply going to dodge a direct question via ad
>> hominem, don't waste the bandwidth.
>>
>> You're not going to hurt my feelings, and it certainly does nothing
>> for your position.
>
> Well, he could use it as a showel and dig even further.
A showel? Is that a digging implement?
SHARX.
What's wrong with army boots?
Kai
> Kai wrote:
>>
>>Well, he could use it as a showel and dig even further.
>
>
> A showel? Is that a digging implement?
>
A spelling flame! Can you get more original than that?
Sinä olet niin uskomattoman typerä että on vaikea uskoa sen olevan
mahdollista. Todennäköisesti joudut kuuntelemaan Walkmanista nauhaa
joka kehottaa sisää- ja uloshengitykseen oikeassa rytmissä pysyäksesi
hengissä.
SHARX.
> SHARX. wrote:
>
>> Kai wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, he could use it as a showel and dig even further.
>>
>>
>> A showel? Is that a digging implement?
>>
>
> A spelling flame! Can you get more original than that?
>
> Sinä olet niin uskomattoman typerä että on vaikea uskoa sen olevan
> mahdollista. Todennäköisesti joudut kuuntelemaan Walkmanista nauhaa
> joka kehottaa sisää- ja uloshengitykseen oikeassa rytmissä pysyäksesi
> hengissä.
Stop using a language that is in its final decline. English rules.
rosie
> Maybe. I lived in this little hick town in Maine when I was a kid
and the
> Birchers pretty much took over the school board back in the 60's,
Scary
> bunch. ......................
> Grace
>
>
> >
>
grace,
i grew up with the leader of the wisconsin john birch society living
down the street.
he truly WAS A SCARY BIGOT!
reminds me of the "BORN AGAINS" of today!
rosie
SHARX.
In my opinion, labelling millions of people because of the actions of one
weird neighbour does not represent logical, rational thinking. You WANT to
trash "born agains" (of which I am not), so you dredge up any justification,
no matter how trite. People shooting at abortion doctors no more represent
"born agains" then some left wing wacko dictator represents "liberals".
F.H.
> We've got our tickets last week to the Pageant in late August. Plan
> to see you then. I think we are also going to do some touristy stuff
> like visit Catalina. We went and spent the day on Lido last time.
> That was cool. I could live there if I won the Lotto.
I almost forgot. Not to poison the well but Catalina can be a bust.
Unless you've arranged to tour parts of the island with a group or guide
you're pretty much stuck right where you get off the boat. You can see
everything rather quickly. The glass bottom boat deal sucks because you
see all the trash and no sea life.
Not sure if they still operate but one used to be able to fly over on
one of those old sea planes. A real "E" ticket experience for the brave
of heart. You land on the water and a little boat picks you up.
F.H.
> I almost forgot. Not to poison the well but Catalina can be a bust.
Looking forward to getting together. My treat this time.
Warbucks
Mark Warner
>
> I'm concerned because of the right and the born again because it
> typically is too holier than thou. Religious pecking order shit.
> I don't' disagree with most of the criticism of Bush and his
> administration, I just don't hate him yet. I'd prefer he walk more
> softly and carry a big stick but you know, he's coming up for election
> and not much is going to change anything until then. So I'm going to
> listen up and watch and see what alternatives there are besides the
> usual criticism. Democrats, so far, haven't come up with anything but
> criticism. Maybe that will change but I'm not impressed with another
> compromised pol out of Washington.
>
> Frank, you know some of the 'freedom' I gained from AA experience left
> me OK with my views, my beliefs or non. I listen as good as I can to
> other views. I usually get turned off by someone shouting in my face
> how stupid I am, or how their own view is on its face accurate and how
> could I possibly doubt it...how someone with my intelligence could
> possibly miss the obvious. Sigh. I'm from Backwater, Arkansas?
>
> But I do listen when people give me a modicum of respect. Human
> nature assures me that we will always have rogues and thieves and
> worse in the world and sometimes they achieve great power. So far,
> I'm still a long way from Backwater, Arkansas, so I have a lot of
> respect for the system of government, if nothing else. And I've seen
> political beliefs compromise too much personal integrity to think that
> some left or right non compromising point of view is the answer by
> itself. The world's just not that pat. My view, anyway.
Mine too, Gary. Thanks for stating it so well.
--
Mark Warner
lose .inhibitions when replying
Grace Hague
(in message <4036979B...@chimplinkxxx.net>):
Spending Mark's money rather freely, aren'tcha?
Grace
SHARX.
Another liberal tendency. <vbg>
F.H.
As long as he's working, I'm the big spender. :))