Narrow minded zealotry
Cass
Didn't you just post something to the effect that if we go ahead with this
war, you are afraid of the consequences?
Is your fear of more aggression against us than has already been suffered,
keeping you from realizing that we either give a drop of blood now or be
ground into hamburger, later?
Recall 9-11, The Cole, African Embassies, Beirut, Lebanon and on and on.
What about Somalia when we turned tail and ran? Doesn't this compute for
you?
I don't chew tobacco and swill long-necks and fly Ole Dixie and chew on a
toothpick but I think that the problem we have is due to few too many John
Waynes and other types who had True Grit. Mary Poppins isn't going to cut
it now.
Cass
Cass
"Frederick" <fxy...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:b2pq3l$1e6bkd$1...@ID-139090.news.dfncis.de...
> It's regretable, but the longer I spend reading the John Wayne/ Errol
> Flynn rhetoric posted here the more I realize that it has become the
> congregating place for an incredible number of narrow minded myopic
> rednecks, hell bent on reinforcing their hatred. I take some comfort in
the
> fact that the concensus in the US does not follow the foaming at the mouth
> types who use this as their forum. The arrogance displayed here is the
very
> attitude that is leading us to hell. if it just led those who expound it
to
> hell it would be justice , but unfortunately it is the youth of the
country
> that will be led to it. Led by a pitiful Commander in Chief obsessed with
> his own ambitions
>
> I think I will leave you armchair warriors to fight your battles alone for
a
> while. You are testimony to the power of limited mass thinking.
>
> Frederick
>
>
Mike F
required to evict the Husseins. It almost sounds like his only source of
hard news is this forum ... and FILTERED, at that. Now THERE'S a
well-informed citizen! When I was that ignorant ... and I was for decades
... I didn't vote because I knew my vote would be based on disinformation or
no information, not facts. IMO, studying hard news -- and not the
self-admittedly biased network pap and certainly not internet spew -- one
hour per day should be a prerequisite to voting rights. It would make this a
far better country and world.
Mike
>
> "Frederick" <fxy...@earthlink.net> wrote
Rich Grise
> Frederick,
>
> Didn't you just post something to the effect that if we go ahead with this
> war, you are afraid of the consequences?
>
warred upon will fight back with whatever resources are available
to them.
> Is your fear of more aggression against us than has already been suffered,
> keeping you from realizing that we either give a drop of blood now or be
> ground into hamburger, later?
>
> Recall 9-11, The Cole, African Embassies, Beirut, Lebanon and on and on.
Could 9-11 and the Cole have been retaliation for Americal agression
in Aftica, Lebanon, Korea, Arabia, Afghanistan, and so on? Do
the people where America is sending imperial invasion forces have
the right to defend themselves against attack?
Does anyone _REALLY_ have any idea who instigated the 9/11 disaster?
Do you have a piece of paper long enough to make a list of the
countries and peoples that America has pissed off, attacked,
bullied, or otherwise provoked in the last 50 or so years?
I think Dubya is trying to create a Fourth Reich, and needs to
be stopped. And I'm an American. I'm a Patriot. I believe in
Freedom, and I believe in the Constitution. And Dubya needs to
be at least Censured, preferably Impeached, and at best,
Executed for High Treason against The Constitution. Only
Congress is granted the authority to make war under the
Constitution. Unilateral action contrary to these principles
makes him a domestic enemy of The Constitution, and as citizens,
it is our Sacred Duty to resist this traitor.
May God/Allah have mercy on our souls.
Rich
> What about Somalia when we turned tail and ran? Doesn't this compute for
> you?
>
> Cass
Cass
Are you calling for the execution of our President, George W. Bush? I
really would like for you to have the guts to answer this.
You may claim to be an American but you are not the kind of American that I
have known.
If you said that you are an Iraqi and follower of Osama, now, I would
believe that.
Cass
"Rich Grise" <richar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3df9fd6c.03021...@posting.google.com...
Mike F
Mike
"Rich Grise" <richar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3df9fd6c.03021...@posting.google.com...
Rick J.
Rich Grise wrote:
<<drivel, drivel, etc. SNIP>>
And ended with
> May God/Allah have mercy on our souls.
What unmitigated bullshit!! And your ending says it all, except it must
have galled you to add "God" to it! Why don't you head back to Bagdad
and tell Saddam you did a good job!
Rick J.
Randy and Cheyanne Gore
> "Cass" <PlEASENOSPAM...@galaxycorp.com> wrote in message news:<b2prmu$k0a$0...@pita.alt.net>...
>
>>Frederick,
>>
>>Didn't you just post something to the effect that if we go ahead with this
>>war, you are afraid of the consequences?
>>
>
> I'm not Frederick, but I see consequences. People who are being
> warred upon will fight back with whatever resources are available
> to them.
>
>
>>Is your fear of more aggression against us than has already been suffered,
>>keeping you from realizing that we either give a drop of blood now or be
>>ground into hamburger, later?
>>
you mentioned Allah. many who scream for bloodshed consider themselves
"good" christians.
Who would Jesus bomb?
Randy and Cheyanne Gore
>>
> What unmitigated bullshit!! And your ending says it all, except it must
> have galled you to add "God" to it! Why don't you head back to Bagdad
> and tell Saddam you did a good job!
>
> Rick J.
>
>
crying ;)
RAM^3
news:3df9fd6c.03021...@posting.google.com:
> Could 9-11 and the Cole have been retaliation for Americal agression
> in Aftica, Lebanon, Korea, Arabia, Afghanistan, and so on? Do
> the people where America is sending imperial invasion forces have
> the right to defend themselves against attack?
>
> Does anyone _REALLY_ have any idea who instigated the 9/11 disaster?
>
> Do you have a piece of paper long enough to make a list of the
> countries and peoples that America has pissed off, attacked,
> bullied, or otherwise provoked in the last 50 or so years?
>
American Agression?
What agression?
Imperial Invasion Forces? What Empire are you babbling about?
The ONLY groups to spew "American Imperialists" are Self-Proclaimed
Communists.
Are you proclaiming yourself to be a Communist?
The Right of a Nation-State to protect its interests has been recognised
since the dawn of recorded history.
The very existance of the United States is a serious affront to many
national "leaders" who, but for that, would feel free to embark on "Wars
of Conquest" against their neighbors.
During the Cold War, the Soviets and the Chinese worked diligently to
foster a hatred of the US among many countries while supplying them with
weaponry and "advisors" for their armed forces and secret police.
Most of those same countries are still being run by the same factions.
Most of those same countries are still spewing the same old party line,
while continuing to spend the majority of their GNP on weapons and
continuing to keep their people in abject poverty.
Retaliation?
For what?
For existing, perhaps?
For supplying more food, medicines, and financial aid to Afghanistan
than all other countries, including Islamic countries, combined?
For supplying more food, medicines, and financial aid to other countries
than any other nation in history?
Or could it be that a few ambitious individuals, such as Saddam Hussein
and his friend Osama bin Laden, would like to return to the 10th - 15th
centuries when Arabs ruled the from Spain, across North Africa and the
Middle East, all the way to India? After all, this "Empire" is still
talked about, by many Arabs, as if it still existed.
Dusty
reality!
"Rich Grise" <richar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3df9fd6c.03021...@posting.google.com...
...
> I'm not Frederick, but I see consequences. People who are being
> warred upon will fight back with whatever resources are available
> to them.
Then tell me, oh visionary of all things great and small, what were the
people in the WTC doing to get "warred upon"? We didn't seek this war, it
was brought to us. Brought to us because of feckless cowards like yourself,
duckin' and weavin' and generally trying to stay invisible--as opposed to
real Americans that stand up to be counted. And frankly, as a former
warrior, I'd just as soon that we did the ass-kickin' and fightin' on
somebody else's dirt, and in somebody else's cities. BTDT; didn't like it
much then, and am unlikely to like it more anytime soon. If someplace has
got to be f*ucked up, better it be theirs than ours...
...
> Could 9-11 and the Cole have been retaliation for Americal agression
Any statement that starts with "could" tells me you have absolutely *no*
clue! Lots of things "could" be one way or the other. But wishing them so
is an exercise in both futility and stupidity. Things are the way they are,
your pointless whining not withstanding...
> in Aftica, Lebanon, Korea, Arabia, Afghanistan, and so on? Do
What American aggression in Africa...Afghanistan? Do you mean the stupid,
misguided attempt to make our armed forces into a "meals-on-wheels" banquet
to feed starving Somalis living under the inescapable terror of their
un-elected warlords? Or were you talking about our recent invasion of
Egypt, our capture of the Suez canal, or maybe South Africa...I musta been
asleep and missed those little adventures...
Or perhaps you mean our non-involvement in the genocides in such
up-standing, humanitarian luminaries like the Congo and Rwanda? Or maybe it
was our non-involvement in Sierra Leone, Angola, or the Ivory Coast. All
wonderful third-world shitholes representing towering monuments to humanity.
Yes, I'm sure that our troops as peace keepers in Lebanon were a thorn in
somebody's side. Not mine! But almost surely friends of yours...
Our troops in Korea? Yeah. They're really, really bad guys. We spent more
than 30,000 American lives to protect those spineless cowards from the
loving embrace of communism. Just think, without our boys over there, they
too "could" be living today like their shivering, starving brethren to the
north. But hey, don't feel too bad...the world socialist order would like
that lifestyle for you too...
To mention Arabia belies and underscores your total and complete ignorance.
We are not occupying Saudi Arabia. We have been invited there at the behest
of the Saudi royal family in order to protect them from the murderous thug
to the north. To say we're an occupying or imperialist power there gives
life to the lie that's your information source.
And finally, the international source of all blessings: Afghanistan. In
case you don't recall, they harbored the Taliban and al Quida, and were
working under a non-functional government. We didn't attack Afghanistan,
people from there attacked us. Seems such a small distinction that I'm sure
it must have escaped your haughty notice. And, when we went in to open a
can of Whup-ass on them, we did so while feeding the starving people they
couldn't or didn't care for. Name for me any other country that's done that
*before* you begin to run down my country's armed forces.
> the people where America is sending imperial invasion forces have
> the right to defend themselves against attack?
Do you even have a clue what "imperial" means? You've become so adept at
mouthing and repeating words crafted for you by your handlers that you've
apparently lost the ability to think on your own. Name for me the last
country that United States armed forces have conquered and continue to
occupy? There has never been anything imperial about our military
adventures, except in tiny little reality deficient socialist minds like
yours...
> Does anyone _REALLY_ have any idea who instigated the 9/11 disaster?
I suppose you, in all of your wisdom, do--please enlighten us. Since you
offered nothing (how noble), let me give you mine: how about an undying
hatred of the simple freedoms that people want and are entitled to, fueled
by a maniacal need to *prove* ones self by clinging to an unproven
eventuality? How about simple minded stupidity? How about abject
cowardice? It's always easier to attack unarmed civilians, flight
attendants, and pilots than facing down an M1 Abrams
>
> Do you have a piece of paper long enough to make a list of the
> countries and peoples that America has pissed off, attacked,
> bullied, or otherwise provoked in the last 50 or so years?
I'll bet it's far shorter than a list of all of the countries that the
United States of America has helped up from the brink of socialist tyranny.
Shorter than a list of all of the countries in the world that our $$ have
helped to overcome both natural and man-made disasters. When we had the
quake in '89, how many Arab, socialist, left-leaning, or dictator ruled
countries came to the aid of our citizens? How many of that list of losers
came to aid us when wild-fires threatened to overwhelm our local forces out
west? How many of those third-world shitholes you're so fond of ever said
so much as, "Thank you!" while they're eating food grown by American
farmers, shipped on American vessels, paid for by American taxpayers? Not
single f*cking one of 'em! None! Nada!
Have we been perfect? Heck no. But on balance you've got to look into
every sewer in order to find enough that stinks in this country to even get
half-way close to any of those third-world islamist shitholes that you so
admire.
> I think Dubya is trying to create a Fourth Reich, and needs to
Ah! See? You've done it again. You've replaced active thought and
processing of information with a slogan. You said, "I think...", when it's
clear that that would the very last thing you're qualified to do without
help...
> be stopped. And I'm an American. I'm a Patriot. I believe in
Couldn't prove that by me from reading your screed...
> Freedom, and I believe in the Constitution. And Dubya needs to
Do you? Which part of the Constitution?
The part in Article II that sez the president is elected by a majority of
electoral votes? Or the part that sez he's the commander in chief?
Maybe you mean the part where congress has already authorized any pending
action?
How about Article IV; ss4; where it sez that we shall be protected against
invasion? Cuz if you don't think that we're being invaded by folks bent on
our destruction, then you're an ostrich too...
Or, maybe you mean all except the second amendment? Let's make it so that
nobody can fight back, and we'll all stand around, link arms, and sing
Kumbaya...
> be at least Censured, preferably Impeached, and at best,
For what? Doing his job? For knowing what the meaning of "is", is? Or
would you feel better if he had a couple of "Lewinski's", lied to a grand
jury, evaded prosecution, and lied to your face instead?
> Executed for High Treason against The Constitution. Only
Name the charges!
> Congress is granted the authority to make war under the
Which they've already granted--must have escaped your notice...
> Constitution. Unilateral action contrary to these principles
> makes him a domestic enemy of The Constitution, and as citizens,
> it is our Sacred Duty to resist this traitor.
No, it is my sacred duty in the name of all of my fallen comrades to support
and give you a forum to make such slanderous and unfounded statements as
your socialist steeped mind can conceive. It doesn't, however, mean that I
have to listen to them or let them go unchallenged.
>
> May God/Allah have mercy on our souls.
Anybody that's so simple minded that appealing to deities is their
justification for breathing is a waste protoplasm.
Besides, in the event it escaped your attention; the Taliban's strident
braying and calling upon their "allah" for some definitive action came up a
tad short when confronted by armed Americans. Nothing like being in the
cross-hairs of a GBU-10 or the sights of an M1-A1 to bring that bit of
stupidity home...
FWIW; I'm rabidly anti-war! It's just that I can't figure out a better way
to accomplish what has to be done. And it's way past time to be doin'...
If you think there's a better way to get SH out of his palaces, then go for
it. If you think that writing him a cute little card with your sincerest
wishes on it, don't let anybody stop you. Do it today! But you're either
gonna hafta lead and do something, of follow those that can. At any rate,
get the f*uck outta the way!
Long live the United States of America, and may all of those islamist
pig-suckers and their sycophant supporters rot in hell!
'nuff said--later all,
Dusty Bleher
San Jose, Ca.
Tom Shaw
it. More to the point go to the middle east and sit down and admire your
navel.
TS
"Rich Grise" <richar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3df9fd6c.03021...@posting.google.com...
> "Cass" <PlEASENOSPAM...@galaxycorp.com> wrote in message
news:<b2prmu$k0a$0...@pita.alt.net>...
> >
> I'm not Frederick, but I see consequences.
snip on the rest of this shit.
RAM^3
$vf5.5...@feed2.centurytel.net:
> Who would Jesus bomb?
>
Jesus Ramirez? Carlos "The Jackal" Ramirez' cousin?
Everybody!
Will Sill
> . . . .IMO, studying hard news -- and not the
>self-admittedly biased network pap and certainly not internet spew -- one
>hour per day should be a prerequisite to voting rights. It would make this a
>far better country and world.
I have a more radical idea, easier to administer. If you appointed me
High Grand High Potentate(I don't realy want the job) I would allow
ONLY taxpayers to vote, AND would further decree that NOBODY whose
income consists of more than 10% tax-derived moneys would be permitted
to vote.
Do ya supose THAT would affect voting patterns?
Will Sill
Rick J.
be an agnostic! Crying my arse!! I'm just getting fed up with all the
anti-Americanism BS being spewed out by people that IMO are nothing more
than traitors, giving comfort and aid to our enemies. You can bet your
last peace symbol that Sadam loves them. And just like the Viet Nam
peaceniks, they will cost more American lives before they are finished!
Rick J.
RAM^3
> He-He! Obviously, you are omniscient. As a matter of fact, I happen to
> be an agnostic! Crying my arse!! I'm just getting fed up with all the
> anti-Americanism BS being spewed out by people that IMO are nothing more
> than traitors, giving comfort and aid to our enemies. You can bet your
> last peace symbol that Sadam loves them. And just like the Viet Nam
> peaceniks, they will cost more American lives before they are finished!
>
>
Check your favorite impartial news source: SH is already proclaiming "Moral
Victory" because of yesterdays "demonstrations".
Cass
need to focus on the traitorous behavior of those right here on our own
shores.
Traitors in America cost American lives.
They used to shoot traitors. Why not return to that policy?
Cass
"RAM^3" <s31924...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9325B36DF2E06...@216.168.3.44...
2manytoyz
Keep weeding these scumbags out of our newsgroups! Sooner or later, we'll
all get back to talking about CAMPING!
"Rich Grise" <richar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
drivel snipped.
Ben Hogland
war is not necessary as of yet.
Let the inspections continue in force. We have Iraq just where we want them.
In fear of us.
Ben
"Rick J." <rjoh...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E516BE1...@attbi.com...
Cass
It isn't anti-American to believe in the tooth-fairy, either.
Thinking we have Iraq contained is just a foolish and naive.
Cass
"Ben Hogland" <benho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b2s3f1$1g65su$1...@ID-62937.news.dfncis.de...
Rick J.
Sadam is playing the the UN, and those who want to give the
inspectors more time, like a fiddle. BTW, can you seriously believe
Sadam has no weapons of mass destruction? And require a continuation of
the inspection farce because you need more proof?
He has them, and we've seen him use them on the Iranians, the Kurds, the
Kuwait's and their oil fields, and some of his own people.
Now I'm hearing that one of his strategies will be the so-called
"scorched earth policy" of blowing up Iraqui dams and bridges, and
setting fire to Iraqi oil fields. Notice I said Iraqi, because they
belong to the Iraqi people, not Sadam!
Time is in his favor, not ours. I think we should hit him sooner,
rather than later. As far as I am concerned the quicker the Iraqis and
the rest of the world is rid of him, the better.
Rick J.
Ben Hogland
> I'm of the opinion that the longer we wait the more lives it will cost.
> Sadam is playing the the UN, and those who want to give the
> inspectors more time, like a fiddle. BTW, can you seriously believe
> Sadam has no weapons of mass destruction? And require a continuation of
> the inspection farce because you need more proof?
>
> He has them, and we've seen him use them on the Iranians, the Kurds, the
> Kuwait's and their oil fields, and some of his own people.
>
> Now I'm hearing that one of his strategies will be the so-called
> "scorched earth policy" of blowing up Iraqui dams and bridges, and
> setting fire to Iraqi oil fields. Notice I said Iraqi, because they
> belong to the Iraqi people, not Sadam!
>
> Time is in his favor, not ours. I think we should hit him sooner,
> rather than later. As far as I am concerned the quicker the Iraqis and
> the rest of the world is rid of him, the better.
>
> Rick J.
Sorry, Rick, but I'm of the opposite opinion and think we have him contained
at this time and further inspections may disarm him in addition to the
threat of war he has to be worried about. That does not make me
anti-American. I am most definitely not anti-American. If he has a "scorched
earth policy", he already has it in place and waiting longer is not going to
change that. I have my opinion, you have yours. To call people with a
different opinion *Anti-American* because they believe it is not yet time
for war just stinks. I'll support our troops if and when they go to war.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Ben
Rick J.
anti-American and a traitor for voicing an opinion opposing a war. But
there's a way of voicing an opinion, and then there's a way of voicing
an opinion! If you were to show up on Sadam's back doorstep voicing your
opposition, as some of these people have done, or start showing up here
in American cities waving signs accusing our president of being a bigger
monster than Sadam, you would be, IMO, a traitor of the first degree!
Obviously, I don't think we have him contained at all, and continuing
the so-called inspections only gives him more weasel-time and would be
detrimental to the best interests of our military.
It seeems evident to me, based on Sadam's behavior to this point, that
he has no intention of getting rid of the afore-mentioned weapons. For
this reason, I firmly believe that a war with Sadam is inevitable.
Therefore, I believe the timing of an attack, to optimze its
effectiveness, should be of our choosing, . As I understand it, the
optimum period will soon be over.
Rick J.
Ben Hogland wrote:
> "Rick J." <rjoh...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3E519985...@attbi.com...
> Sorry, Rick, but I'm of the opposite opinion and think we have him contained
Mike F
Will Sill
one of our persistent anti-logic, anti-administration, anti-war
demonstrators (Hogland):
>I think you misunderstand. I have not, and would not call you
>anti-American and a traitor for voicing an opinion opposing a war.
Sorry, Rick, I disagree. IMO any sorry bastard who whines and
bellyaches and publcly opposes every thought and suggestion of our
Commander in Chief in time of war (and we are at war even though our
spineless Congress will not admit it and declare it) is both
anti-American and a traitor. To say, as Hogland does, that:
>> I'll support our troops if and when they go to war.
. . . is the hollowest kind of transparent hyocrisy. We ARE at war.
The actions of Hogland and his mentally disturbed ilk do a great deal
of harm, as they enable the enemy to claim public support. But what
does "support our troops" REALLY mean when mouthed by the peacniks?
NOTHING but the shameless emptiness of the self-righteous. Sooner or
later, every decent human has GOT to take sides: the two choices are
submission to tyranny or fight for freedom. If war is bloody, so be
it. Freedom is worth fighting for.
Will Sill
Ben Hogland
> I think you misunderstand. I have not, and would not call you
> anti-American and a traitor for voicing an opinion opposing a war. But
> there's a way of voicing an opinion, and then there's a way of voicing
> an opinion! If you were to show up on Sadam's back doorstep voicing your
> opposition, as some of these people have done, or start showing up here
> in American cities waving signs accusing our president of being a bigger
> monster than Sadam, you would be, IMO, a traitor of the first degree!
The demonstrations here in the US are appropriate. The demonstrators are
making their voices heard. One is not anti-American for disliking Bush's
polices. It's an American freedom to voice opinions. That is very, very
American like and is one of the things America stands for. Freedom of
speech.
> Obviously, I don't think we have him contained at all, and continuing
> the so-called inspections only gives him more weasel-time and would be
> detrimental to the best interests of our military.
You have your opinion, I have mine. I believe we have him very contained.
> It seeems evident to me, based on Sadam's behavior to this point, that
> he has no intention of getting rid of the afore-mentioned weapons. For
> this reason, I firmly believe that a war with Sadam is inevitable.
> Therefore, I believe the timing of an attack, to optimze its
> effectiveness, should be of our choosing, . As I understand it, the
> optimum period will soon be over.
We now have permission to fly over Iraq to take pictures. The UN inspectors
indicate there is much more cooperation from Iraq in general. Iraq is
feeling the heat and beginning to cooperate.
People Like Will Sill are anti-American. They don't want Freedom.
Be careful who you categorize *Anti-American*. The Patriot Act (which I
strongly disagree with) allows Anti-Americans to be taken away without
representation and without telling anyone. Even allows naturalized citizens
to be stripped of their citizenship. People like Will Sill would allow
people like me who are voicing their opinion to be taken away in that
manner. Will Sill is the Anti-American IMO. Don't be one of those who is
blinded by patriotism.
Ben
Rick J.
As you say, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I'm not sure you have the credentials to lecture me on patriotism. I
paid my dues a long time ago, and so have my two sons.
Rick J.
Bob Hatch
>
>
> The demonstrations here in the US are appropriate. The demonstrators are
> making their voices heard. One is not anti-American for disliking Bush's
> polices. It's an American freedom to voice opinions. That is very, very
> American like and is one of the things America stands for. Freedom of
> speech.
>
sign demanding that SA disarm. All he has to do to stop a war is disarm,
now.
On Fox news it was brought up the the demonstrations were planned by the, I
think, Communist Party. A professor from Berkley said he didn't know that,
but it made no difference, Bush was wrong. Not that SA was wrong.
Why is it that people cannot see that all SA has to do is *prove* that he
has destroyed his WMD and the problem is over, gone, done with.
--
http://www.bobhatch.com
Our web site about RV Stuff
A work in progress
Vito
>
> ... NOBODY whose income consists of more than 10% tax-derived moneys would be
> permitted to vote. ...
Hmmm, so active duty military people and geezers on social security, et
al, would definately be disenfranchised but what about people who work
for companies like Lockheed that make stuff for the Government, and
others who work in the mines and steel mills, et cetera, who provide
them the raw materials, and then we have the churches and service
businesses these workers support.
Sounds like only the idle rich could vote?
Mike F
SOME HARD NEWS. You've had 12 years to see the fallacy in this untrue
statement and false argument.
Mike
"Ben Hogland" <benho...@hotmail.com> wrote in
Vito
>
> What the heck's Fred reading? Polls strongly favor taking whatever steps are
> required to evict the Husseins. It almost sounds like his only source of
> hard news is this forum ... and FILTERED, at that. Now THERE'S a
> well-informed citizen! When I was that ignorant ...
With all due respect, Mike, if you derive your info from the media then
you have traded ignorance for disinformation, half truthes and lies.
Funny how things come full circle. Germany elected Hitler and his Nazis
and in WW2, France and Belgium welcomed them and helped them with the
"Jewish problem". When the Americans, Brit's and Russians finally
overthru the Nazis, France and other countries who'd been defeated
refused to give back confiscated Jewish property. So Euro Jews went to
Palistine and treated the locals there the same way they'd been treated
in Europe. Naturally, Arab countries didn't like this much; nor the USA
for helping it happen. Now Hussein is hoarding weapons to strike Israel
and her allies (us) using "terrorists" to deliver them. So we gotta
fight Iraq to protect Israel and New York. And who's opposing that? Why
the same nations that created the problem to begin with: France, Belgium
and Germany! But you won't see that on the evening news ....
Will Sill
as writing:
>> Be careful who you categorize *Anti-American*. The Patriot Act (which I
>> strongly disagree with) allows Anti-Americans to be taken away without
>> representation and without telling anyone. Even allows naturalized citizens
>> to be stripped of their citizenship. People like Will Sill would allow
>> people like me who are voicing their opinion to be taken away in that
>> manner. Will Sill is the Anti-American IMO. Don't be one of those who is
>> blinded by patriotism.
Well, as long as we are into name-calling, Hogland is a lying sack of
bovine excrement.
But on a level of cold logic, there is a very fundamental disagreement
between genuine Americans and anti-American liberal hand wringers:
1) Liberals generally (Hogland is just one of the more deliberately
obnoxious representatives of that non-thinking band of idjits) do not
value American citizenship. For one thing, they seem to think that
any wetback, stowaway or criminal conspirator who can gain entry to
our shores by fair means or foul is suddenly entitled to all of the
"rights" of citizenship. Intelligent people should realize that our
"rights" as citizens are NOT the same as foreigners' rights, whether
visiting legally or as illegal aliens.
2) People like Hogland who shriek against American leadership are not
merely expressing opinions and suggesting other alternative about
matters of policy - they are enemies of the country, seeking to
overthrow the government be any means available to them. It is
fortunate that MOST of them are ignorant, impotent mental midgets
whose only weapon is a huge mouth.
3) I'm not sure where Hogland gets his opinion that I would be in
favor of deporting "people like [Hogland] who are voicing their
opinion", but I suspect it is because he is too ignorant to realize
the important difference between offering criticism of proposed
policies (a valuable service) and undermining elected leadership by
giving aid and comfort to enemies in time of war. If I were in a
position to do so, I certainly WOULD forcibly deport anyone who hated
my country as badly as Hogland obviously does. Like the Young YKW, he
has virtually renounced his citizenship.
4) The benefits and rights of citizenship cannot possibly exist
without some responsibility and respect on the part of citizens.
Sniveling whiners who do NOTHING but sit on the sidelines of life and
piss & moan about how the country is run are not citizens - they are
mere residents - sucking on the teats of a blindly generous government
machine. As more and more if Hogland's ilk dominate the political
life of the country, the government's ability to protect us from
enemies and maintain peace & justice atrophies. While more and more
of the country's tax money is devoted to welfare programs here and
abroad, we're going broke. A government able to grant every resident
all the benefits a moocher would want must first seize _everything_
from every citizen with assets.
5) Each day brings some new ACLU atrocity in the courts as our
Hoglands chisel away with our rights while screeching at the top of
their puny lungs about "rights". Thanx to Hogland's ilk, even life
itself is no longer protected - tax money is used daily to murder
babies, aliens are allowed to overload our health and welfare systems,
and pornographers are revered as "artists" and paid out of the
treasury.
Hogland, I am not a man of violence, but I prefer war to neighbors
with your miserable attitude. You're contemptible.
Will Sill
Will Sill
>On Fox news it was brought up the the demonstrations were planned by the, I
>think, Communist Party. A professor from Berkley said he didn't know that,
>but it made no difference, Bush was wrong. Not that SA was wrong.
For the seriously concerned reader: Years ago I subscribed for a
short time to "The Worker" - the official newspaper (propaganda organ)
of the Communist Party USA. Nowadays one of the many fronts for that
POV appear as The Revolutionary Communist Party (not to mention a raft
of similar but better-disguised groups)
These people make no bones about their aims:
"A Party Programme -- a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Programme -- is a
battle plan for destroying the old and creating the new. It is a kind
of road map for how to win the revolution -- and a clear statement of
what winning in the fullest sense really means. It is a tool for
understanding this society, and the world, and for identifying all the
forces who will make revolution -- proletarian revolution. As Mao
said: 'Who are our enemies? Who are our friends? This is a question of
the first importance for the revolution.'"
Elsewhere in the site:
"Resist the U.S. Juggernaut of War & Repression!"
Why does this matter? It helps to understand WHO is organizing
anti-war activities - and WHY. Enemies of the US: Read that stuff
for yourself before shooting off your mouth about how wrong our
admnistration is. Decent Americans can hardly read that tripe without
throwing up.
Will Sill
Cass
Where folks get that movie stars have some special insight into any
political situation, is beyond me. I guess that when you are of the type of
sheeple that drools and worships some idiot that mass marketing created and
they happen to have nice hair and teeth, that is proof enough for the
followers that they are Gods.
Oh, but he wears such pretty ties. She is so graceful.......
Cass
"Mike F" <iso...@urxSpamDam.com> wrote in message
news:MCk4a.9296$0q5....@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
Cass
and kids brainwashed into his traitorous and treacherous way of thinking.
Then, they may have some folks that they, too, can influence.
Freedom of speech is something that I firmly believe in and, in fact, has
been one of the reasons that I cite for my illuminating those in this group
that wants to restrict free expression.
However, we are at war. Our way of life is under attack.
Any school child knows the axiom: "Divide and Conquer". So, when these
sheeple try to divide our resolve and intent to protect ourselves, we may as
well think of them as brothers and sisters of Saddam and Bin Laden.
Cass
"Will Sill" <wi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:m1c45vsch1k9883lu...@4ax.com...
Cass
"Ben Hogland" <benho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b2tgcg$1fn287$1...@ID-62937.news.dfncis.de...
Mike F
> For one thing, they seem to think that
> any wetback, stowaway or criminal conspirator who can gain entry to
> our shores by fair means or foul is suddenly entitled to all of the
> "rights" of citizenship. Intelligent people should realize that our
> "rights" as citizens are NOT the same as foreigners' rights, whether
> visiting legally or as illegal aliens.
>
Illegal immigrants who sneak in get free medical care.
U.S. military veterans disabled in the line of duty must now buy their own
health care.
Sadly, the current administration contributed to that sorry situation begun
in the last regime.
and
> Sniveling whiners who do NOTHING but sit on the sidelines of life and
> piss & moan about how the country is run are not citizens - they are
> mere residents - sucking on the teats of a blindly generous government
> machine.
And on the arteries of those who shed their blood so whiners can whine.
Mike
Cass
I just made a post or reply to one of Will's posts and I mentioned freedom
of speech.
Hogland, are you so bereft of common sense that you think that anything that
you say should be protected by the First Ammendment?
If you think that you have the right to say whatever you want whenever you
want, you are much more naive than I ever thought.
In times of war, things don't remain the same. One either presents a strong
and united front to the enemy or they show him weakness, panty-waisted
nattering and divisiveness.
You would like to commit treason just for the sake of your being able to
hide behind your free speech excuse.
Folks such as yourself disgust me to no end.
Cass
"Ben Hogland" <benho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b2tgcg$1fn287$1...@ID-62937.news.dfncis.de...
>
Mike F
especially after reading Goldberg's Best-seller, "Bias".
Mike
"Vito" <vi...@crosslink.net> wrote in message
news:3E529424...@crosslink.net...
Cass
Everyone should tell Hogland and his type, just how they hurt our Country.
Cass
"Will Sill" <wi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:p7p45vsqhgnqd9dtm...@4ax.com...
Ben Hogland
> Ben,
>
> As you say, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
>
> I'm not sure you have the credentials to lecture me on patriotism. I
> paid my dues a long time ago, and so have my two sons.
I wasn't lecturing you on patriotism. I don't question that you are very
patriotic. I suggested that you should not be blinded by it to allow
compromise of constitution. I point to the US constitution as the
credentials.
Ben
Rick J.
lightly. And I revere it. Once upon a time I helped to defend it. But
the Constitution is a legal document. The yard stick I'm using is based
on ethics, which is subjective, not law.
I don't propose that the traitors I'm talking about be subjected to a
legal system. I reserve the right to try them in Rick's Kangaroo Court.
As I said, if they wish to hit the streets carrying placards that
proclaim our president to be a more amoral person than Sadam, then
Shazam! They're traitors. If they wish to book a flight to Baghdad, to
play Stoogie for Sadam, Shazam, they're traitors. To be blunt, they
make me want to puke. This covers several of Hollywood's celebrities,
and at least one of our State Representatives.
Religion and politics are a couple of subjects that I usually refrain
from discussing in Newsgroups. They are quite volatile. Usually two
(or more) well meaning people start out with a level headed, reasonable
discussion, which rapidly turns into an argument and then into a running
gun battle, with the attendant insults and personal attacks. They
usually run for an inordinate length of time because each wishes to have
the last word. In the majority of cases, it's equivalent to pissing
into the wind. People of convictions, right or wrong, (depending on
who's passing judgment) are unlikely to be swayed to the other person's
point of view in the running gun battles that occur in various
Newsgroups. The final outcome is usually a loss of respect for both
parties. The parties involved loose respect for each other, and more
often than not the rest of the newsgroup loses respect for both.
In spite of knowing this, I jumped into this particular thread, against
my better judgment, because I harbor strong feelings regarding the
particular subject matter.
You and I are now aware of each other's opinions on this subject, and
have agreed to disagree. That's satisfactory to me. As far as I'm
concerned this thread has run it's course.
Rick J.
Tom Shaw
TS
"Ben Hogland" <benho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b2tgcg$1fn287$1...@ID-62937.news.dfncis.de...
>
Tom Shaw
Where in hell do you get your info. The Daily Worker?
TS
Ben Hogland
"Tom Shaw" <a000...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:8CBAA70E8DDA6565.C9BA3FEC...@lp.airnews.net...
> I would also allow you to be taken away you creep.
> TS
Nazi!
Ben
Ben Hogland
> You and I are now aware of each other's opinions on this subject, and
> have agreed to disagree. That's satisfactory to me. As far as I'm
> concerned this thread has run it's course.
Yes, I agree to disagree agreeably with you, Rick. It was just a discussion
of an issue which many, obviously, have strong convictions to.
Ben
Cass
does anyone know where i can buy k-y by the case?my daddy says i should use more
Mike F
Read some news, guy. His own nuclear scientist defectors claim he was going
full tilt on nuke programs right under the '90s inspectors' noses.
Mike
> "Ben Hogland" <benho...@hotmail.com> wrote
Cass
Just for a moment, consider if Canada had to draft one or two of your kids
to fight in this war. What would you do, hide them so that other folk's
kids could protect your sorry self?
Let's see if you have the guts to answer this and let's see you wiggle.
Any bets?
Cass
"Stan Birch" <birc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e5be1d0...@news.netrover.com...
> >On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 "Skeptic" <Ske...@att.net> wrote:
> >Thank You. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one here who was
> >aware that the US set Saddam up to invade Kuwait.
>
> Well . . . hardly!
>
> Don't think there are a whole lot of Canadians that aren't aware that
> the BUSH-du-jour administration, gave Saddam their most enthusiastic
> support to Saddam, to invade and take over Iraq. And then when the
> BUSH-babies saw that the whole effort was disadvantageous to the BUSH
> oil-stock fortunes; they did a switch mid-stream; adopting an
> anti-Iraq stance.
>
> While initially, I overwhelmingly respected GWB as the new president
> of the United States; I've come to regard him and his ilk as mere
> predators, more than eager to sacrifice the lives of lesser
> low-life-military-peasant Americans in the interest of enhancing the
> BUSH oil-fortune!
>
> While I'm not prepared to ever consider, even for a moment,
> considering tossing away the lives of my ever-so-precious-children, in
> the ever-so-repuganant American an effort to enhance the BUSH fortune;
> intellectuallly-challenged dumbsticks like Will Sill wouldn't hesitate
> for even to do the same!
>
> Yet, for my own part, I can't think of anything more rewarding in life
> than to experience my sons and most wondrous daughter's-in-law jumping
> into my arms and exclaiming:
>
> "I love you Dad!!!"
>
> Could life offer anything more precious?
>
Mike F
Al Qaeda will take care of your kids' future just fine. Even if this WERE
about oil or Bush money, our armies have volunteered to spill their blood so
your kids can live a little ... maybe a lot ... longer.
But don't push it. Your demonstrated unwillingness to read anything about
the facts of this whole mess is going to rub some new widow the wrong way.
Don't you get it? Opinions and political bent aside, there actually are some
FACTS underlying all this mess. If you want those kids to grow up
non-Muslim, I suggest you start reading some news. That mindless, radical
left-wing rhetoric you parrot may get you and those precious kids gassed or
even nuked some day if it has any impact on Bushie's determination to nip
this crap in the bud. If he doesn't persist, and we get another pie-eyed
feel-good president in here in two years, we're all screwed and 9-11 will
look like a fistfight.
Sorry if that shook you up, but you and your gullible counterparts need to
wake up that atrophied left brain hemisphere and put it in gear. This isn't
about touchy-feely lalaland ... it's about reality. If Saddam persists and
starts supplying Al Q or its successor, do you REALLY want to send your kids
to that mall when they hit 16?
Start readin', man. You've got some serious catching up to do if you want to
improve your odds of a peaceful future. I know; I ignored politics until
lately, and it's incredible what's going on out there in the real world.
If the only response you can think of is some insults, save your fingers. I
couldn't care less what you think of me. I'm just trying to do those kids a
favor.
Mike
> "Stan Birch" <birc...@hotmail.com> wrote > >
Will Sill
stinging rebuke for Stan Birch, who wrote:
>> > While I'm not prepared to ever consider, even for a moment,
>> > considering tossing away the lives of my ever-so-precious-children, in
>> > the ever-so-repuganant American an effort to enhance the BUSH fortune;
>> > intellectuallly-challenged dumbsticks like Will Sill wouldn't hesitate
>> > for even to do the same!
A mind is a terrible thing to waste - and Stan's is wasted for sure.
Sadly, he and his children MAY survive - and they may go to their
graves convinced that the US is their enemy, even while OUR children
are doing the dirty work needed to push back the Muslim radicals that
want to kill them. Stupidity and ingratitude is not unique to the
Birch family - there are plenty of people in the world who share their
deliberate malice.
Please stay home, Stan.
Will Sill
Some ideas are so obviously daft that they do not deserve to be
treated seriously.
Vito
>
> The most prominent source of terrorist recruitment is the mosques all
> around the world. Take Johhny Walker for instance. ...
Jeeze, Stan, whadda ya want? Next thing you'll be asking upstanding
Americans like Will Sill to accept that 99% of the world's problems stem
from religion or that Gawd didn't give Palestine to Moses' people or
that the world was never flooded ot that ... etc.
Dusty
> That's OK, Stan. If we DON'T spend U.S. and British lives to slow
terrorism,
> Al Qaeda will take care of your kids' future just fine. Even if this WERE
> about oil or Bush money, our armies have volunteered to spill their blood
so
> your kids can live a little ... maybe a lot ... longer.
wrong--as they will, Stan and his ilk can't be held responsible. That makes
it a lot easier for them to flap their gums, and generally protest and carry
on as if they knew what they were talking about...
While no one can clearly forsee the future, it's a given that within the
next near term ,we're going to witness some gastly reflexive action by SH
and his cadre of fine, upstanding thugs. It's going to be interesting to
see Stan and his knee-jerk pals respond to mass gassings, "scorched-earth",
and similar scenarios. His responses to that are going to be interesting;
when read against the backdrop of the cheering, hooting, and hollering of
newly freed Iraqis...
Later all,
Dusty
...
Cass
i love men.do you have naked pics that i can look at?i am gay and
proud.
send all email to casseg...@galaxycorp.com if you are interested
in buying a boat.
Mike F
been taken as a low blow. Maybe I just wasn't looking, but I hadn't seen
this side of you.
You pose a very valid concern and question, one I'd like to see addressed
from the top, too. I suppose you're aware that the PC crowd was horrorstruck
at the very IDEA of the FBI's merely COUNTING the mosques in the U.S., let
alone actually driving past and LOOKING at one. That ostrich-like, knee-jerk
inanity is the reason I have gotten short-tempered with the ignorant
pacifists. (Not to implicate the informed, genuine conscienscious
objectors.) I hope Ridge has the backbone Bush is demonstrating.
But terrorist recruitment, training, and infiltration is a long pipeline,
and Johnny Walker is just one faceless piece of cannon fodder among
millions. Saddam, OTOH, has unique means by the tens of tons to arm
entrenched terrorists with the means of killing tens of thousands in one
attack, millions in a full assault. And if he could get away with it, he'd
do it in a heartbeat.
Of COURSE he will use the gas, germs, and any radioactive crap he has
mustered. Bush Sr knew that, Clinton sad that ("Of course he has 'em, and I
guaranTEE he will use them"), Bush Jr knows it, and any cognizant
10-year-old knows it. But isn't that a valid reason to emasculate him now,
rather than AFTER he has nukes, even though bio is a worse weapon than a
nuke? A full fledged nuke of the variety he's probably a decade from might
take out a paltry million, but bugs can decimate a continent, at least.
Contained, my ass. A decade of inspections and a dozen years of flyovers
and 17 UN resolutions has achieved almost no reduction in his WMD programs;
at best it has merely made it difficult for him to buy parts and materials
for them. Of course, the French and Germans are bypassing those problems in
return for billions, IF the latest spin on THAT isn't administration spin.
All that aside ... are you willing to have your entire cost of living
doubled if Saddam fulfills his life's goal of controlling all middle eastern
oil? Are you willing to stand by while Saddam murders millions more ragtag
civilians in his own neighborhood?
Mike
"Stan Birch" <birc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e55c883...@news.netrover.com...
> >On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 "Mike F" <iso...@urxSpamDam.com> wrote:
> >That's OK, Stan. If we DON'T spend U.S. and British lives to slow
terrorism,
> >Al Qaeda will take care of your kids' future just fine. Even if this WERE
> >about oil or Bush money, our armies have volunteered to spill their blood
so
> >your kids can live a little ... maybe a lot ... longer.
>
> I've never suggested that we shouldn't be aggressively fighting
> terrorism. I just don't see Iraq as being an important part of that
> fight. Mopping up Afganistan was a good idea. The Sudan is also a
> hotbed of terrorists and their training camps. Why not address the
> Sudan first? No oil there?
>
> The most prominent source of terrorist recruitment is the mosques all
> around the world. Take Johhny Walker for instance. He was recruited to
> fight for the Taliban, by a local mosque right here at home. The
> Muslim clerics are always on the lookout for another sucker that can
> be conned into blowing himself up for the Muslim cause. So what do you
> do about all of these recruitment centres right here at home? They are
> a far greater threat than Iraq. Iraq is pretty much contained.
>
Mike F
bigger and brighter knee-jerks he or one of his sons musters in another
decade. As for the cheering freed Iraqis ... I'm not convinced of that. More
than anything else, these people worship their religion, and they think
we'll try to take that from them. I suspect these people would prefer to
live like sewer rats with their religion than live in one of Saddam's
palaces without it.
Mike
"Dusty" <dus...@innerlodge.com> wrote in message
news:v59o2p...@corp.supernews.com...
Cass
Stan Birch,
What manner of man are you? I simply don't understand you when you say that
you would
eagerly support Saddam Hussein while he murders MILLIONS OF CIVILIANS.
Are you really serious? I am not trying to cast you in a bad light when
asking this.
Here is an exchange between you and Mike F.
Mike F. to Stan Birch. "Are you willing to stand by while Saddam
murders millions
more ragtag civilians in his own neighborhood"?
To which Stan Birch replied: "In this, he has my most eager
support. It'll save
the rest of us a whole lot of trouble"!
Stan, this isn't out of context, it is a direct reply to Mike's statement.
Are you trying to be funny by making a joke about killing millions of
innocent people?
I am sure that among those millions of civilians, there are many who would
do us harm.
However, I would guess that among those millions of civilians, there are a
hugh number
who just want to live their lives and feed their families as best as they
can.
Stan, in this world, as is clearly evidenced right in these newsgroups,
there are all
sorts of folks with all sorts of opinions and many are wrong and many are
right but
your statement just floors me.
Tell me 'it ain't so'.
Cass
"Stan Birch" <birc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e572a75...@news.netrover.com...
> >On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 "Mike F" <iso...@urxSpamDam.com> wrote:
> >Sonofagun! Thanks for a rational response to what I was afraid might have
> >been taken as a low blow. Maybe I just wasn't looking, but I hadn't seen
> >this side of you.
> >
> >You pose a very valid concern and question, one I'd like to see addressed
> >from the top, too. I suppose you're aware that the PC crowd was
horrorstruck
> >at the very IDEA of the FBI's merely COUNTING the mosques in the U.S.,
let
> >alone actually driving past and LOOKING at one.
>
> For sure!! We would be exceedingly remiss in not knowing every
> anti-American sound and syllable spewed by our gratuitous Muslim
> invitees to this country. Has the politically-motivated Ridge
> addressed this issue?
>
> In all fairness, I'm sure that if he's worth a tinker's fart; he
> already knows what's going on in each and every anti-American Muslim
> Mosque.
>
> But then we get down to the aspect of religious freedom in America. At
> inception, it was no doubt a laudable objective; but no more!
>
> In the first and second century, adoption of Christianity held no
> greater opportunity than a mere death-sentence. Anti-Christianity was
> a crusade shared by Judaism and Romanism alike; unaware that their
> crusade would eventually lead to the undeniable the veracity of
> Christianity.
>
> Throughout these years, Christianity never thrived more favorably . .
> . to the point that Constantly, hedging his political bets, declared
> Christianity" the flavour-du-jour! :-(
>
> >That ostrich-like, knee-jerk
> >inanity is the reason I have gotten short-tempered with the ignorant
> >pacifists. (Not to implicate the informed, genuine conscienscious
> >objectors.) I hope Ridge has the backbone Bush is demonstrating.
>
> You can be assured that I'm by no means, a conscientious objector!
>
> I'm merely awaiting a valid target.
>
> >All that aside ... are you willing to have your entire cost of living
> >doubled if Saddam fulfills his life's goal of controlling all middle
eastern
> >oil?
>
> Don't believe that's even a remote possibility. Saddam is still a
> comparatively small player in the oil-fields.
>
> >Are you willing to stand by while Saddam murders millions more ragtag
> >civilians in his own neighborhood?
>
> In this, he has my most eager support. It'll save the rest of us a
> whole lot of trouble!
>
Mike F
been nuked by Israel -- by now if we hadn't put thumb screws on him 12 years
ago?
If you advocate ragtag genocide, I'd think you'd be pushing the button on
this war. You'd be getting two birds -- ragtag civilians (an abominable
objective IMO ... so far) and arguably the most dangerous regime in that
part of the world, if not the world --with one stone.
Mike
"Stan Birch" <birc...@hotmail.com> wrote >
> Don't believe that's even a remote possibility. Saddam is still a
> comparatively small player in the oil-fields.
>
> >Are you willing to stand by while Saddam murders millions more ragtag
> >civilians in his own neighborhood?
>
Mike F
protestors, IMO.
But I reserve the right to change that opinion if we keep seeing them
spontaneously cheer our problems, such as the Shuttle crash, by the hundreds
of thousands.
Mike
"Cass" <PlEASE,NOSPAMcas...@galaxycorp.com> wrote in message
news:b33fjo$ejl$0...@pita.alt.net...
Cass
Besides being a luxobox repairman, I didn't realize that you had an inside
track to the real goings-on between Osama and Saddam.
I wonder if you would be courteous enough to inform our Government of your
findings?
Cass
"Chris Bryant" <Bryan...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:eofa5vgqb8sk33vc5...@4ax.com...
> Dusty wrote:
> <<..>>
> >The problem, Mike, is that if they (the pro-Saddam left) get shown to be
> >wrong--as they will, Stan and his ilk can't be held responsible. That
makes
> >it a lot easier for them to flap their gums, and generally protest and
carry
> >on as if they knew what they were talking about...
>
> See Dusty- that's a problem. I suppose it comes from the
> black/white- "you're either for us or against us" rhetoric of the
> President, but simply because someone doesn't want the US to
> unilaterally start this was doesn't mean they are "pro-Sadam".
> It also sticks in my craw that while Sadam does need to be
> dealt with, the administration is just flat lying to us when trying to
> justify action- there is zero alliance between Sadam and Al Queda- (of
> course the Liberal media doesn't seem to point that out)- Bin Laden
> hates Sadam *nearly* as much as he hates us. That added to using an
> outdated university research paper as the "top secret" intelligence is
> just plain dishonest.
>
> There's an excellent op-ed piece in the NY Times by Thomas
> Friedman (who is somewhat of an expert on the middle east)-
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/19/opinion/19FRIE.html (free
> registration required to read).
>
> A short excerpt (after he blasts the French- rightfully so,
> and in the middle of blasting the President):
>
> <quote>
> Tell people the truth. Sadam does not threaten us today. He can be
> deterred. Taking him out is a war of choice - but it's a legitimate
> choice. It's because he is undermining the U.N., it's because if left
> alone he will seek weapons that will threaten all his neighbors, it's
> because you believe the people of Iraq deserve to be liberated from
> his tyranny, and it's because you intend to help Iraqis create a
> progressive state that could stimulate reform in the Arab/Muslim
> world, so that this region won't keep churning out angry young people
> who are attracted to radical Islam and are the real weapons of mass
> destruction.
> </quote>
>
> So don't assume that just because people are against a
> unilateral war, they are pro Sadam.
>
> --
> Chris Bryant
> Bryant RV Services- http://www.bryantrv.com
Vito
zealotry as drives suicide bombers ....
Dangerous zealots have/will always be with us but are easy to thwart
with just a little common sense. For example, 9/11 could never have
happened if the perps hadn't been invited into the cockpits to sit in
the pilots' seats, or if the air crews hadn't been trained to surrender
peacefully, or if there'd been just one person with a gun on each plane.
Knowing that, it don't take much smarts to see how it could have been
*easily* prevented. But no, we cannot admit the truth, else we have to
admit that FN airline and FAA negligence let it happen! So we increase
airport security instead! Fer chrissake, no airports crashed into the
WTC or Pentagon! Talk about narrow minded zealotry! Oy!
Wade
What would have been easier yet, was not to train them as pilots in the
first place.
Wade
Cass
just because he thinks he is being 'lied to'!
I just continue to be amazed at how shallow these sheeple are.
Chris, go blow the spider webs out of a pilot tube and let our government
try to protect you while you are doing it.
Cass
"Chris Bryant" <Bryan...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:cm8c5vcdftvi6pvv7...@4ax.com...
> Dusty wrote:
>
> >"Chris Bryant" <Bryan...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:eofa5vgqb8sk33vc5...@4ax.com...
> >...
> >> See Dusty- that's a problem. I suppose it comes from the
> >> black/white- "you're either for us or against us" rhetoric of the
> >> President, but simply because someone doesn't want the US to
> >I understand your point, Chris, and to a degree, I agree with you. But I
> >think you didn't get my point. The "pro-Saddam" rallies only present one
> >side of the picture. They loudly bray, "Let Saddam go!", and imply that
our
> >future is best served if we would only kiss and make up with him.
>
> Yes, but most of the rallies I saw were anti war- not pro
> Sadam.
>
> >
> >The majority of Americans, the NCA, and our president think that SH means
to
> >kill as many of us as he can if he's not stopped--permanently. If GW is
> >wrong, then he's going to have killed a choirboy-in-training, rescued a
> >people, and made one hell of a divot of freedom in a nasty, nasty place
on
> >this globe. If he's right, then he'll have rid the world of a snake
instead
> >of a choirboy; and the rest of it will continue to be true. If the
> >pro-Saddam guys are wrong, we're gonna have more dead Americans. The
> >difference is; if GW's proven to be wrong, he'll have done the world a
good
> >turn anyway--and we can always vote the bastard out. If the pro-Saddam
> >folks are wrong; other folks will get to die to prove them so, and they
> >can't or won't be held accountable. The difference is; the conservative
> >right stands for responsibility and individual rights. The socialist
left
> >stands for "it's someone else's fault" and "group think".
>
> Again, you are equating anti war with pro Sadam, and as a
> matter of fact, the number of Americans who are for *unilateral*
> action is a fairly small minority- the majority think that we should
> take care of Sadam- but only with a clear coalition. Acting
> unilaterally will likely destabilize any remaining hopes for peace in
> the entire region.
>
> >
> >Never forget that the miserable collection of mutts and dregs that
feathered
> >most of those parades were dyed-in-the-wool socialists. Trust me, they
> >don't have *your* good at heart...
>
> I think you are projecting your feelings to the marchers- many
> of the US protests were attended by people who have *never* done
> anything like that- an amazing cross section of middle America.
>
> >
> >> unilaterally start this was doesn't mean they are "pro-Sadam".
> >Sure it does. If your case were true, they would have been carrying
signs
> >that said:
> >"Saddam: Prevent war! Disarm now!", or
> >"Saddam: No more dead Kurds! Stop the killing!", or
> >"Saddam: 1.2 million dead Muslims is enough! Stop the carnage!", or
> >"Saddam: Leave your country in peace! Seek Asylum now!", or
> >"Saddam: No more invading your neighbors for their oil!", or
> >"A burqua and a leash on a woman don't = Arab property rights!", and so
> >on...
> >
> >I checked. Nobody was carrying anything even remotely like that...
>
> That's because the President has done such a poor job in
> diplomacy- I mean- how bad do you have to be to *loose* a PR contest
> with the butcher of Baghdad?
>
>
> >
> >> It also sticks in my craw that while Sadam does need to be
> >> dealt with, the administration is just flat lying to us when trying to
> >Then, how do you propose "dealing" with him? Send him a Hallmark card
with
> >"Pretty please..." on it? Have the UN draw up a sharp and purposeful
> >resolution--and have Kofi Annon deliver it himself? Have the UN building
> >security force "make" him go! Have his buddy, France, withhold his next
> >wine boxcar shipment? While I'm rabidly anti-war, I just can't think of
> >another, safer, more effective, workable option than a war to terminate
his
> >miserable existence.
>
> Well, the proposal that was floated a bit back to simply fly
> UN peacekeepers in to the Baghdad airport sounded like a plan, but was
> quickly shot down by the President. Why do that when you can lob
> cruise missiles?
>
>
> >
> >This nonsense that the absence of war is peace is as dumb as more UN
> >inspectors. Peace comes about when at least one of the combatants can't
> >continue. *Then* you have peace. The sham of what's popularly called
> >peace--the absence of hostilities--doesn't work. Witness: North Korea,
the
> >Palestinians, the Tamils, not to mention that a state of war between Iraq
> >and the UN still exists--since he's neglected to honor *his* side of the
> >agreement for the cessation of hostilities.
>
> Ah- so peace is when you have simply killed all of your
> enemies? I suppose if the President has his way, and starts throwing
> around tactical nukes, we well may have peace- while not "in" our
> lifetime, certainly at the end of it.
> >
> >> justify action- there is zero alliance between Sadam and Al Queda- (of
> >If you *know* that they're lying to us, why don't you present that info
to
> >your buddies in the left-media. Trust me, any chance--no matter how
> >remote--that you *might* be right, would get you 24/7, non-stop coverage!
> >And you'd be acclaimed an international hero to boot! Heck, even I'd
have
> >to say something nice about you then...
>
> That's actually common knowledge- the transcript of the second
> to last bin Laden audio tape, which was used by the President to
> "prove" ties between Sadam and Al Qeda, also has bin Laden calling
> Sadam an "apostate".
>
> >
> >> course the Liberal media doesn't seem to point that out)- Bin Laden
> >> hates Sadam *nearly* as much as he hates us. That added to using an
> >Ah! True enough, I'm sure. But the devil's in that "nearly". UBL has
no
> >country to lose, SH does. If it wasn't for that, you can bet one or more
of
> >his minions would be criss-crossing the US spreading death and
destruction
> >today (if they aren't already...).
>
> That's because the whole "liberal media" thing is a farce- the
> media is money and power driven.
>
>
> >
> >> outdated university research paper as the "top secret" intelligence is
> >> just plain dishonest.
> >Come on, Chris! What do you have to be before you can see the evil in
that
> >man. He's given us ten's of demonstrations of his unbridled cruelty and
> >despotic methods. What do you need before you will consider him the
> >murderous scum-bag that he is? More dead Americans? Or would a lesser
> >amount of dead Europeans do instead?
>
> You miss the point- I *know* he is a scumbag- but why does the
> administration have to LIE about it? It stinks.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> There's an excellent op-ed piece in the NY Times by Thomas
> >> Friedman (who is somewhat of an expert on the middle east)-
> >Ah yes. The New York Times. The bastion of Americanism and of fair and
> >equal reporting...<big sigh!>
> >
>
> It would help if you would actually read the op ed piece, but
> I suppose it is far easier to dismiss it out of hand.
>
> >I prefer, "The Federalist", Feb. 14 issues, "Top of the fold..."
> ><quote>
> >It's high time for some right thinking in rebuttal to those objecting to
our
> >imminent assault on Iraqi as we prosecute our war against Jihadistan.
> >Despite those who would insist we are "about to go to war," we have been
at
> >war since 11 September, 2001. Our principal adversary is not Iraq, but
> >Jihadistan, that borderless nation of Islamic extremists with global
reach,
> >inhabited by al-Qa'ida terrorists and other Islamists who are targeting
the
> >U.S.
> >
> >The "Islamic World" of the Quran recognizes no political borders. While
> >orthodox Muslims (those conforming to the teachings of the "pre-Medina"
> >Quran) do not support acts of terrorism or mass murder, very large sects
> >within the Islamic World are indoctrinated with the "post-Mecca" Quran
and
> >Hadith (Mohammed's teachings), which call for "Jihad" or "Holy War"
against
> >all "the enemies of God." (Thus, why The Federalist terms this enemy
> >"Jihadistan," or "nation of holy war."
> >
> >Shortly after al-Qa'ida's 9-11 attacks, President George Bush said: "This
> >WAR on terrorism will be fought on a number of fronts, in different ways.
> >The front lines will look different from the wars of the past." A year
> >later, Iraq's support for al-Qa'ida was clear, prompting Mr. Bush to
> >declare, "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final
> >proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom
> >cloud." In his most recent address to the nation, President Bush said,
"It
> >would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this
country
> >to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."
> ></quote>
> >
> >There's more, but I'm reluctant to give the resident "net-nanny" too much
to
> >read...(:-)!
>
> That's interesting, considering that Iraq is a secular,
> socialist society, and in fact Saudi Arabia fits the profile far more
> than Iraq does (let me see- number of 9/11 terrorists from Iraq....
> zero, number from S.A.....)
>
> >
> >...
> >> So don't assume that just because people are against a
> >> unilateral war, they are pro Sadam.
> >Well, I guess that if they're "anti-Saddam", then they're certainly going
> >about showing it in a very peculiar way...
>
> Don't get me wrong- there are a bunch of far left wackos out
> there who are plain wrong, but the majority of people who are against
> going it alone are just that- *not* for Sadam. And some of us dislike
> being lied to in the process.
Dusty
Dusty
San Jose, Ca.
"Vito" <vi...@crosslink.net> wrote in message
news:3E56611E...@crosslink.net...
Cass
grammar, sentence construction, punctuation and other errors, are things
that we all do and USUALLY when another points out that the other person is
guilty of making them, then, their ammunition dump is empty.
Not in ALL cases. Repeated mistakes such as the above means that folks are
lacking in one or more of those areas of errors.
Chris Bryant cannot even spell the words he wants to use as tools of his
argument. Okay, so, this isn't a big deal but he exacerbates the issue by
not even reading what he is arguing about. Here, Dusty said that the U.N.
peacekeepers are armed but impotent inasmuch as they cannot use them. Chris
argues that they are, indeed, armed. How stupid.
Now, IN MY OPINION, a person who advertises that he is a LUX-0-BOX fixer,
probably would be better off if he didn't advertise his stupidity.
Personally, I would never take anything in for repair to a person who
exhibits so much stupidity. Yes, he may be able to blow spider-webs out of
pilot tubes and change a sacrificial anode just fine. However, you take
your chances. I would pass.
Cass
"Will Sill" <wi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:m1ad5vgci1c99j9op...@4ax.com...
> Chris Bryant <Bryan...@cfl.rr.com> recently wrote these words:
>
> > With that- I'm finished with this discussion. Heil Bush.
>
> Does anyone else see why I wrote this bozo off as a political
> ignoramus a long time ago?
>
> Personally, I believe anyone who has the unmitigated gall to equate
> GWB to Hitler is not only wrong and vicious but (whether knowingly or
> not) is behaving like a communist revolutionary. Don't agree? Check
> the various communist/socialist/revolutionary web sites - see for
> yourself who is saying what.
>
> Will Sill
Cass
thinking.
Cass
"Mike F" <iso...@urxSpamDam.com> wrote in message
news:Mty5a.3382$Xa4....@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
> To think I was reading this stuff closely, trying to see both sides of the
> issue, when his entire argument, even his right to live in the U.S., IMO,
> was throw right into the cyanide oven with his closing line.
>
> I suggest that anyone who needs his RV fixed ... do it elsewhere.
>
> Mike
>
> "Chris Bryant" <Bryan...@cfl.rr.com> wrote >
> > Heil Bush.
Cass
that you made?
Btw, I still remember you trying to pass yourself off as an expert when I
posted that CDs are much more capable of faithful reproduction of music than
you thought possible. Then, you got caught again when I pointed out that
you copied and pasted your retort as your own.
Cass
"Chris Bryant" <Bryan...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:p5ed5vsa9vmhbcm8u...@4ax.com...
> Mike F wrote:
>
> >To think I was reading this stuff closely, trying to see both sides of
the
> >issue, when his entire argument, even his right to live in the U.S., IMO,
> >was throw right into the cyanide oven with his closing line.
> >
> >I suggest that anyone who needs his RV fixed ... do it elsewhere.
> >
> >Mike
>
> Yeah- I admit that was a cheap shot- it was designed to enrage
> the feeble minded. I guess it worked. Too bad that people cannot
> answer any of the points I bring up, and must pounce on the one stupid
> thing I wrote.
> As to whether you want your RV repaired correctly, or be
> ripped off, I could care less- I get virtually no business fro this
> forum (a percentage so small as to be uncountable).
> I do find it funny that some can sling name throwing around
> ("socialist" seems to be the in vogue term now), but when confronted
> with "tit for tat", some people wig out. It's too, too funny that what
> is sauce for the goose, cannot be sauce for the gander.
> My only defense in making the comment- I'm tired, doing 10
> things at once (I *do* have a job), and I'm tired of people not
> opening their eyes to what is going on.
> For the record- I do not think that Bush is any where *near*
> being a Hitler- for many, many reasons.
Cass
When someone does things that puts my life and my familie's lives in danger,
I don't take kindly to it.
When I am going down the road and some idiot pulls out in front of me and
jeopardizes my life, I don't bid them adieu and smile. I frown like hell
and let them know that their behavior is not appreciated and I honk, too.
To let them think that pulling out in front of you and possibly killing you,
is acceptable behavior, is sheeple-think.
Now, when some idiot such as Chris Bryant spews his poisonous insanity and
puts our lives in danger by tacitly supporting the enemy and perhaps
encouraging more 9-11 attacks, I don't take that lightly.
Yes, freedom of speech is a tenacious hallmark of mine and I often holler
about it but when someone's stupidity aids the enemy and they attempt to
confuse it with freedom of speech, I speak out against that person and their
ideas and everyone else should, too.
Cass
"Ben Hogland" <benho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b36f12$1ie0ha$1...@ID-62937.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Mike F" <iso...@urxSpamDam.com> wrote in message
> news:Mty5a.3382$Xa4....@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
> > I suggest that anyone who needs his RV fixed ... do it elsewhere.
> >
>
>
> Chris would get all of my RVing business if he lived locally to me. Not
> because his politics and logic agrees with mine, but because he knows his
> stuff related to RVs. However, his politics is the icing on the cake.. I
> also admire him for his respectful tenacity. Just look at all the mud
> slinging yet he calmly shovels it off without stooping as low as *most*
> here. He's a good man; there is no question about that.
>
> Ben
>
>
Cass
It has already been explained to you that just having a differing opinion is
just fine and is what freedom is about.
However, when you shout 'fire' in a theater or threaten to kill someone or
threaten to over-throw the government, not only is that illegal, that is not
nearly as bad as your tacit support of Saddam Hussein by undermining and
fracturing the efforts of this administration to protect the U.S and its
people.
"United, we stand, Divided, we fall" is not just some trite and hollow
slogan that means nothing.
Have enough intelligence to understand that a differing opinion is far, far
away from aiding our enemies.
Sheeple!
Cass
"Ben Hogland" <benho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b36qdt$1ih1kj$1...@ID-62937.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Mike F" <iso...@urxSpamDam.com> wrote in message
> news:uUA5a.3558$Xa4....@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
> > So you agree that Bush is equivalent to Hitler?
> >
> > Can even one of you who spout that line defend it in ANY way?
>
> No worse than *many* of your ilk saying liberals should be taken away just
> because they hold different opinions regarding the possible Iraq war (as
> just one of many examples). You know, what's good for the goose is good
for
> the gander? Is it that you can't grasp that? Do you think that every
thing
> from the conservatives on this newsgroup is honest and without hyperbolic
> rhetoric?.. Or maybe you're thinking only Republicans can make outlandish
> comments? I think you believe that latter.
>
> No, I don't think Bush Jr., or Senior is Hitler like and if you read
Chris's
> latest comment (which I'm sure you did), you'd see that he doesn't think
> Bush is Hitler like either. I do think comments from people like Will Sill
> are Hitler like. I didn't see you commenting on his take, that people who
> don't think a war with Iraq at this time is necessary, should be taken
away.
> Do you really agree with that? Do you really think that people should not
> have an opinion other than what Bush thinks? I really don't think you do..
> Yet you stand there with no comment as if you agree and now have the
> audacity to call Chris on a his single hyperbolic comment after *much of
the
> same* from the right .. Do you defend Will Sill's and Tom Shaw's comments
or
> not? If you don't, why didn't you tell them the same damn thing as you
just
> told me? Is that an acceptable double standard to you?
>
> What comes around goes around. However, I'd say Chris has been patient and
> has *NOT* utilized that tactic much compared to the likes of your ilk.
Just
> read just a few comments in this thread to see that.
>
> Ben
>
>
Madeleine
you don't agree with out of context and go off on a rant of your own that
has little or nothing to do with the original post.
--
Peace, love and serenity,
Madeleine
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/madewar/
"Cass" <PlEASE,NOSPAMcas...@galaxycorp.com> wrote in message
news:b36tas$1ep$0...@pita.alt.net...
Cass
How about telling me where I misunderstood what Hogland said?
You seem to attack everything that seems to hit the target.
Or, is it that you misunderstood what I said?
Cass
"Madeleine" <mad...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ROD5a.1320$4n4.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Ben Hogland
*ass is filtered.. He/she/it is securely behind my filter as I'm sure
he/she/it is behind many people's filters.
I appreciate your reply, Madeleine; I really do.
For the sake of this NG, please do not quote *ass's posts. I see very few of
them these days. As a matter of fact, this is the first post of he/she/it's
that I've read in weeks. There is madness from the general population of the
NG at times, than there is real *MADNESS* from the likes of *ass.. I'll
stick with leaving *ass out of the mix.
Thanks,
Ben
"Madeleine" <mad...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ROD5a.1320$4n4.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> *A'ass*, go back to reading comprehension classes. You seem to take
Cass
You, like Madeleine, are too funny! Why don't you just go ahead and admit
that you can't handle me or what I have to say so, you hide behind your
precious filters.
It seems that what you have done with your life is FILTERED REAL LIFE thus
have become sheeple that can't stand on their own four hooves and
effectively function rather than engage in magical thinking.
If you opened your eyes and looked reality square in the face, perhaps you
would have learned about how life really works and you would not have become
pitiful and sorry sheeple/liberals.
Cass
"Ben Hogland" <benho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b373ij$1ipth4$1...@ID-62937.news.dfncis.de...
Cass
You truly are a despicable person. You say that Chris' meaning was clear to
you and totally ignore that Mike F. said that many idiots would just blindly
accept that B=H, as being factual.
Mike F. was much too generous when he said that he thought that was out of
character for Chris. Anyone who thinks that, needs to go to google to learn
how Chris really thinks and operates.
You sheeple have never been blessed with analyitcal thinking or common sense
or logic so, you have trouble understanding the difference between speaking
your opinion and aiding the enemy of the State.
I notice that none of you have addressed the issue about shouting 'fire' in
a theater or threatening to kill the President or such when you hide behind
your cloak of 'free speech'.
Yes, I truly believe in free speech and yet, like the turncoats that you
are, you misuse it for your convenience. You jumped all over me for me
expressing an opinion yet, now, you claim free speech is your friend and you
can blithely aid the enemy with it.
You are truly disgusting and despicable sheeple.
Cass
"Ben Hogland" <benho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b37cig$1jchvr$1...@ID-62937.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Mike F" <iso...@urxSpamDam.com> wrote in message
> news:yhF5a.3682$Xa4....@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
> > We're not talking about opinions here. I'm asking people such as you
what
> > facts you can offer to say Bush = Hitler. And even though Chris backed
off
> > when called on it, you came right back agreeing with his original
> statement.
> > Back it up.
>
> Chris added two words to the end of his comment to make a point in jest.
> Look at all the lies and assumptions written by all the others here.. It
was
> clear to me what he meant with his *two words*. He was suggesting that
many
> think everything Bush says it correct without question and without
thought.
> Now read again what others from the opposite side write and tell me your
> message is not an *opinion*...
>
> >
> > No, I don't agree with Will's statement, but you know Will.
>
> So it's OK for Will to make statements like he did? You must think since
he
> is a good 'ol boy that it's OK? What, it's OK because he's a fellow
> *conservative*? Or maybe it's that you don't mind that some
*conservatives*
> think that taking away people who disagree with Bush is a good thing??
>
> > But telling
> > the
> > public that B = H is serious because thousands of idiots are actually
> > swayed
> > into thinking it's true, not just rhetoric.
>
> So it's OK for Will Sill and other conservatives to say that people should
> be hauled away if they disagree with Bush and the *war* plan, but it's not
> OK
> to make a point with a two word joke?
>
> > That's why I try to
> > differentiate between facts and my opinions in what I write, and try not
> > to
> > employ rhetoric.
>
> You failed miserably.
>
> >And I don't have time to nitpick every comment I see; I
> > try
> > to concentrate on the truly asinine factual misstatements.
>
> You missed more than a few good opportunities *much* better than the
> two word statement that you grabbed. You're not trying hard enough. I'd
say,
> you're not trying at all. See the one's that are anti-American. One's that
> suggest taking away civil liberties. Ones that suggest no-one should have
a
> differing opinion.. You missed many asinine statements to address.
>
> > I was quite
> > surprised at what Chris wrote; it was quite out of character for him,
and
> > IMO was worthy of comment because it was such an extreme accusation, far
> > beyond rhetoric IMO.
>
> Bullshit. You simply missed the point,.
>
> > The reckless use of that comparison is repeated far
> > too
> > often when some reporter thrusts a microphone into some protestor's face
> > to
> > use it lightly.
>
> Shall he be thrown in the pen., for saying it? Too bad you didn't get the
> meaning, but I think you didn't get it on purpose.
>
> Ben
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Cass
You make a good point when you say that folks should not lump everyone under
the same label.
Yes, there are some good or bad folks in any group, race, religion,
political party affiliation and various belief-systems.
The problem is that after so many glaring examples of what one is or the
ignorant beliefs that they choose to let control their lives, it becomes
apparent of who is what and what is who.
You take issue with fact that I accuse folks of being sheeple for letting
others run their lives. You particularly point out that I denigrate anyone
who shows their receipt at Sam's or other establishments. That I do so is
PARTICULARLY cogent during these times as it is one more little infringement
on our freedoms. Let businesses and others do this enough times and more
establishments will do that and more and one fine day, when Jews are hauled
off by jack-booted thugs and gassed and spat upon, you will suddenly have an
epiphany and it will come to you and you will say: My God! That is what
that Cass idiot was trying to say, all along.
If that isn't clear to you by now, maybe you are one of those unreasonable
folks that you talk about, who is unworthy of further discourse.
Cass
"Nadyne Nelson" <nad...@prospectiveplanning.com> wrote in message
news:KgP5a.2354$ES3....@nwrddc04.gnilink.net...
> Ben Hogland wrote:
> >
> >
> > Chris would get all of my RVing business if he lived locally to me.
> > Not because his politics and logic agrees with mine, but because he
> > knows his stuff related to RVs. However, his politics is the icing on
> > the cake.. I also admire him for his respectful tenacity. Just look
> > at all the mud slinging yet he calmly shovels it off without stooping
> > as low as *most* here. He's a good man; there is no question about
> > that.
>
>
> I would have written a similar post but Ben Hogland said it all quite
> eloquently.
>
> I have been subscribed to this newsgroup, as well as several others and
> quite a few mailing lists, for quite a few years and have always enjoyed
> reading the messages with my morning coffee.
>
> I've learned some valuable information from all of them and have taken
part
> in some threads that are both off-topic and on-topic and still felt the
time
> spent was worthwhile.
>
> However, lately, almost all of my newsgroups and mailing lists have been
> infused with a level of rudeness, name calling and general intolerance for
> others' points of view. I guess it's the times we're in and the stress of
> war talk, economic downturn, etc. that's making so many people behave so
> badly. I have seen a level of anti-Semitism, seen the word 'nigger' used
> recently and seen slurs flung at our Canadian neighbors the likes of which
I
> haven't seen in years.
>
> For the record, I am Jewish and I was born and raised in The Bronx, NY. I
> was brought up to believe that generalizations like "ALL Liberals", "ALL
> Republicans", "ALL Jewish people", etc. were signs of a lack of
> intelligence. I believe most intelligent people can comprehend that there
> are Liberals who share some Conservative opinions, some Republicans who
> share views that are mostly embraced by Democrats and not ALL Jews are
> cheap!
>
> I learned a long time ago that it rarely pays to try to convince someone
who
> is narrow minded, lacks intelligence or is intolerant that there may be
some
> merit in another person's position. I learned to disrespect the opinions
of
> those I believed were too close-minded to listen to facts or reason. That
> started back when I was a child and learned to disrespect my own father's
> opinions about me, my friends and my beliefs. I loved my father but if I
> had respected his opinion, for example, about 'women', I would have grown
up
> believing that I was stupid, couldn't drive a car, couldn't balance a
> checkbook, would use my feminine wiles to take advantage of men, got
> promoted in my job because I "slept my way up" the ladder, and so on.
>
> That's the reason why I no longer respond, in any way, to some posters on
> this list. I won't challenge someone who is ignorant enough to make fun
of
> the spelling of my name. I won't defend a remark that lumps me in a group
> called 'sheeple' because I don't mind showing my sales receipt at Sam's or
> Costco, when I know (and so does anyone who has ever met me) that I am as
> far from a 'sheeple' as you can get and not be in jail : D
>
> I am not afraid to match words or wits with any of these people but why
> bother? I will continue to read this newsgroup, and the others and hope
> that the level of nasty, name-calling, rude posts diminishes and that I
> continue to get information about my motor home, places to visit, some
> computer help, valuable cell phone and internet information, etc.
>
> And no, I'm not a net-nanny nor do I use filters. People can post
whatever
> they please - I decide want I want to read and what I want to respond to -
> but a person can dream, can't they?
>
> If any of you watch TV, there is an ad currently running by the Church of
> the Latter Day Saints. It happens to be about child-rearing but there is
> one man who suggests that saying ALWAYS and NEVER to your children is not
a
> good way to communicate with them. After all, he says, "Nobody NEVER or
> ALWAYS." There is a lesson to be learned in that - if you want to
> communicate your ideas or opinions to a large group of people, communicate
> in a way that makes others CHOOSE to listen to you. If, on the other
hand,
> your objective is to be contentious, make waves, make trouble or 'stir up
> the pot' - that's your choice.
>
> Flame shield engaged.
>
> Nadyne Nelson
> nad...@prospectiveplanning.com
>
>
Nadyne Nelson
Cass wrote:
> You take issue with fact that I accuse folks of being sheeple for
> letting others run their lives.
That's right. I take issue with it because I don't believe that you can
make a leap from showing your receipt at Sam's to being a 'sheeple.'
> businesses and others do this enough times and more establishments
> will do that and more and one fine day, when Jews are hauled off by
> jack-booted thugs and gassed and spat upon, you will suddenly have an
> epiphany and it will come to you and you will say: My God! That is
> what that Cass idiot was trying to say, all along.
I don't think I can make the leap from a business asking me to show my
receipt upon exiting to being hauled off by jack-booted thugs and gassed. I
have, and will, fought back with every resource available when I believe in
the cause. I just don't believe in that cause. That doesn't make me a
sheeple. I can choose not to shop there or I can obey their rules. Is that
any different than a man who chooses to go to a restaurant that requires a
jacket and tie and then refuses to wear one? Would you consider someone who
dons a jacket and tie to eat in a particular restaurant a 'sheeple?'
Wouldn't you need to know more about who he is and what he stands for?
> If that isn't clear to you by now, maybe you are one of those
> unreasonable folks that you talk about, who is unworthy of further
> discourse.
>
No, it's perfectly clear to me and if you notice, this is the first time I
have responded to anything you have written in months. That's because I
felt that the tone of your message was genuine and was not solely intended
to be provacative. I am not an unreasonable person, by MY standards - and,
to me, those are the only standards that matter.
Nadyne Nelson
nad...@prospectiveplanning.com
Cass
You really are not thinking this through, I THINK.
You don't one day wake up, open your door and go outside and find a sign
that says: ALL HERETOFORE FREEDOMS ARE RESCINDED.
It doesn't work that way and YOU being a JEW, should know that better than
most, if you studied history.
In reality, and historically, freedoms have been eroded and taken away,
little-by-little, and by tiny things that don't matter to many people - just
like the demands that Sam's makes to show your receipt.
I suppose that if you had lived in Nazi Germany and seen how an almost
entire nation could be over-taken slowly but surely, you may be more
sensitive to encroachments of your freedoms, however seeminly insignificant.
Remember this aphorism: freedom is costly and has to be paid for over and
over.
Do I think Sam's or other establishements are out to subvert us and remove
our freedoms? Of course, not!
Do I think that the practice of folks willingly letting illegal practices
become the norm, put our freedoms in jeopardy? OF COURSE and ABSOLUTELY.
You ask if I would need to know more about a person before I labeled them as
sheeple. Let me answer it this way:
1. I know something about you. I know you allow your daughter to use foul
language to you and you find that acceptable.
2. I know that you cannot/will not make the connection from someone
demanding something from you, (WITHOUT AUTHORITY) to one
day, losing freedoms that you don't want to give up.
3. I know that you had/have an abusive father and since you want to bring
his doing psychological damage to you into this exchange, perhaps,
you are overly defensive and are prone to cheer for what/whom you perceive
as the underdog. Perhaps, that is why you allow your
daughter to use foul language since you are hesitant to correct her for fear
of repeating your father's actions.
4. You make the mistake of thinking that because someone's message or
exchange isn't polite, the message isn't true.
5. You won't read messages from an author that you don't like or is not
polite enough for you (shades of your father?) so,
you hide and don't get the benefit of other points of view.
Do I think that you are a bad person? I really don't know you well enough
to make that determination but I do think that you do some very, very bad
things.
Naturally, you don't care what I think but you should stop just for a moment
and think about some things that we are discussing.
In summation, the above is why I label you and others like you as 'sheeple'.
Cass
"Nadyne Nelson" <nad...@prospectiveplanning.com> wrote in message
news:bZP5a.10071$_J5....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
RVC
VERY well written!
RVC, USMC (Ret)
"Nadyne Nelson" <nad...@prospectiveplanning.com> wrote in message
news:bZP5a.10071$_J5....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Nadyne Nelson
>
> You really are not thinking this through, I THINK.
You think just because I don't agree with you means that I haven't thought
it through? I have and I just don't agree that anyone asking for anything,
authorized or not, indicates a trend towards erosion of freedom unless they
can do it be force and not be prosecuted for it.
We know that anyone can do anything they want by force if they are willing
to pay the price. If the merchant at the store you next shop at asks you
for photo identification, you refuse because he doesn't have the legal right
and then he whips out a Smith & Wesson and shoots you and never has any
charges filed against him, then I would worry about freedom being eroded.
> In reality, and historically, freedoms have been eroded and taken
> away, little-by-little, and by tiny things that don't matter to many
> people - just like the demands that Sam's makes to show your receipt.
I doubt that. As long as people have choices, freedom has not been
compromised.
>
> I suppose that if you had lived in Nazi Germany and seen how an almost
> entire nation could be over-taken slowly but surely, you may be more
> sensitive to encroachments of your freedoms, however seeminly
> insignificant.
I AM sensitive to encroachment of my freedom. Why can't you understand
that, in my opinion, a store that asks for my receipt (when I have the
choice not to shop there and not to show it) is NOT an encroachment on my
freedom. You may consider it an encroachment on yours - that's your right,
just as it is my right not to think so.
> You ask if I would need to know more about a person before I labeled
> them as sheeple. Let me answer it this way:
>
> 1. I know something about you. I know you allow your daughter to use
> foul language to you and you find that acceptable.
You don't know that at all. You only know that my daughter used language
that YOU consider foul. You have no idea how I feel about it or what I did
or didn't do about it. Not exactly enough information to form an opinion of
me. You probably have enough information to form an opinion about my
daughter, but since you have no idea what I said, did, thought or felt, you
really should not form an opinion about me based only on the information you
have.
> 2. I know that you cannot/will not make the connection from someone
> demanding something from you, (WITHOUT AUTHORITY) to
> one day, losing freedoms that you don't want to give up.
I concede that you have formed an OPINION - that's not KNOWLEDGE - it's only
an opinion.
> 3. I know that you had/have an abusive father and since you want to
> bring his doing psychological damage to you into this
> exchange, perhaps, you are overly defensive and are prone to cheer
> for what/whom you perceive as the underdog. Perhaps,
> that is why you allow your daughter to use foul language since you
> are hesitant to correct her for fear of repeating your father's
> actions.
I did not have an obusive father (unless you consider yourself an abusive
father). My father was a lot like you : D He was just close-minded and
opinionated and believed his opinion was the only one that had any validity.
As far as 'allowing' my daughter to use foul language, again, you have
formed an opinion based on only a minimum amount of information. You have
no idea whether I punished her, threw her out of the house, slapped her, or
sat her down and had a 'heart-to-heart' talk with her. As for your
'armchair' analysis of my father's alleged psychological damage, I don't
believe you have the credentials to analyze anyone.
> 4. You make the mistake of thinking that because someone's message or
> exchange isn't polite, the message isn't true.
Where did you get that idea?
5. You won't read messages from an author that you don't like or is
> not polite enough for you (shades of your father?) so,
> you hide and don't get the benefit of other points of view.
I never said I don't READ messages from authors I don't like. I said I
don't usually respond to them.
> Do I think that you are a bad person? I really don't know you well
> enough to make that determination but I do think that you do some
> very, very bad things.
Really? Like what? Not killing my daughter for saying "shit?"
> Naturally, you don't care what I think but you should stop just for a
> moment and think about some things that we are discussing.
Do you think I responded to you without reading and thinking about it?
> In summation, the above is why I label you and others like you as
> 'sheeple'.
>
And I don't usually label people at all. As I've pointed out, your labeling
me a 'sheeple' or calling me a 'sheeple' has no impact on me one way or the
other. I just think you would have more validity if you didn't make such
wide-sweeping generalizations about people who don't think what you think,
feel what you feel or do as you do.
Nadyne Nelson
nad...@prospectiveplanning.com
Cass
What a waffle! You don't do well when asked to clarify your position, do
you?
Cass
"Don Bradner" <d...@arcatapet.com> wrote in message
news:567g5v0ri9msfe4de...@4ax.com...
> Will Sill <wi...@epix.net> wrote:
>
> >You're assuming it was a gambit, which I do not buy.
>
> Hmm. Mike F posted:
>
> >Someone pointed out that we declared war against Iraq in 1991 ... and
that
> >that declaration has not been rescinded.
>
> >If that's true (?), are not those demonstrating against the
administration
> >(and thus in favor of the enemy) guilty of aiding and abetting the enemy?
>
> I responded with the fact that the assumption was false, which Mike
> again chose to question rather than doing the tiny amount of research
> necessary to learn whether it was or not.
>
> >But your own
> >gambit is not-so-artfully avoiding the larger question you snipped:
>
> You posted your opinion, which you are entitled to. That does not
> constitute a question, implied or not. It is your opinion, on which I
> choose not to comment.
> --
> Don Bradner
> www.arcatapet.net
Cass
You are sickening! What a coward! You make a wildly asnine remark that
had no basis whatsoever and then, you compound your error by asking everyone
believe that it was a trap for the feeble-minded!
You sheeple disgust me more and more.
Cass
"Chris Bryant" <Bryan...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:904g5vc292sh8tvmn...@4ax.com...
> AJ wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Chris Bryant wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah- I admit that was a cheap shot- it was designed to enrage
> >> the feeble minded.
> >
> > What is that OOOPPPPSS ?? Too late you said it and must have meant
> >it because this is not an instant medium. It was the cheapest shot in
> >this whole discussion and like many have said liberals always seem to
> >want to call people they disagree with Nazis or Hitler...
> >
> > Jim
>
> Dang- looks like I got two... I didn't think the bait was that
> good.
Cass
You just go on and on and make excuse here and if that one isn't swallowed,
you spin another one. Now, it is because Morpheus didn't visit you.
The count of the excuse-makers just keeps rising.
Her Royal Highness, Janet Wilder and her ilk was traumatized by having been
shown, as a child, how to protect herself in case of nuclear attack. That
excuse her generation for gulping and injecting and inhaling drugs like
there was no tomorrow.
Don Bradner, when caught, relies on semantics.
Nadyne, attributes much of her problems to her father who told her that she
couldn't do this, understand that, would be a flaming temptress to get what
she wants and so on yet, it is most important to remember that he wasn't an
abusive father.
Chris Bryant equates our President as the same as Hitler yet, when that
raised the ire of reasonable folks, he then claimed that he was setting a
trap for the feeble-minded. Now, the latest is that he was tired.
All we need now is the Clintons to come in and explain what the meaning of
'is' is. Also, they could give us a lesson on what sex is not and what it
is. Wait, how is that possible since they don't know what 'is' is?
Are there more excuses and justifications and rationalizations and waffling
going on here or in Saddam's Iraq?
Cass
"Chris Bryant" <Bryan...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:5hrf5vc7jl95d594b...@4ax.com...
> Mike F wrote:
>
> >We're not talking about opinions here. I'm asking people such as you what
> >facts you can offer to say Bush = Hitler. And even though Chris backed
off
> >when called on it, you came right back agreeing with his original
statement.
> >Back it up.
>
> I'm back (up at 3A.M., drive across the state, take a 3 hour
> test, drive *back* across the state). The small justification for my
> statement (other than being dog tired, running behind, etc. etc.) is
> that 1- it was a throw away statement, made after being labeled a
> socialist for daring to disagree with the President- and 2)- it was
> really meant more for people who blindly follow a person and ignore
> any wrong doings or lies. You know, if I was really just anti-Bush, I
> would have opposed the war in Afghanistan, but I fully supported that.
>
> >
> >No, I don't agree with Will's statement, but you know Will. But telling
the
> >public that B = H is serious because thousands of idiots are actually
swayed
> >into thinking it's true, not just rhetoric. That's why I try to
> >differentiate between facts and my opinions in what I write, and try not
to
> >employ rhetoric.
> Yeah- I do too- mea culpa (on the other hand, Will writes in
> pure rhetoric, so I have come to expect that from him).
> Anyway- my last post in this thread, but remember it is
> possible to love the US while disliking the president, and it is
> possible to be against this war, while supporting our troops.
Cass
I think that you have unwittingly hit upon the solution when you mentioned
flowers in rifle barrels.
I think that you and the rest of the flock needs to send a bouquet of roses
to Saddam and Osama. You could go further and have the UN, convene a
special official meeting to do an official study to determine the
feasibility of implementing a resolution to appoint a delegation of sheeple
to take some officially appointed artists to paint flowers on his hardware
of bombs, cannisters, missiles and other weapons of mass destruction that
he doesn't have. You know, FLOWER POWER!
Speak softly and carry a wilted daisy. Turn the other cheek. Twinkle,
twinkle little star, here is a flower for your jar.
People don't kill people, the lack of flowers does. Sheeple, sheeple who
need sheeple, are the pluckiest sheeple in the world.
You could call it flower-ware for hardware. Since he says his weapons are,
in reality, vapor-ware, the flower-ware wishful thinking would fit right in.
After that fails, you could form a human chain around an aboretum of your
choice and in unison, sing Kumbaya, all the while with roses in your teeth
and bleating and blathering about Michael Jackson's two plastic surgeries.
Cass
"GBinNC" <GBi...@yahoooo.com> wrote in message
news:aegg5vs5eunk0ipio...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 20:33:42 -0700, Lone Haranguer
> <lin...@direcway.com> wrote:
>
> >Explain to me how you can "support the troops" at the same time
> >you are against the war they are fighting?
>
> That's too easy.
>
> All one has to do is to show one's support for the military who follow
> lawful orders and risk their lives to defend our freedom, while
> opposing the policies of the government that got us involved in the
> first place.
>
> Remember the famous photographs of Vietnam war demonstrators who, as a
> symbol of peace, put flowers in the rifle barrels of the National
> Guard who were sent to control the crowds? It wasn't the soldiers they
> were protesting against -- it was the war itself.
>
> GB in NC
Cass
You seem to think that because I didn't address your extremely poor analog
of Sam's demanding their customers show their receipt before exiting, is
equivalent to a fine restaurant requiring their patrons to don coat and/or
tie, that you have hit on a cogent thought.
You haven't. It is a poor analogy as there are way too many variables that
make it different.
I will interject that to reply to all of your points would be too long of a
post so, I will address them with separate posts. I will confine this post
to the dinner/coat strawman that you tried to construct.
Now, I know what your answer will be but before you grasp for the obvious
gold-ring answer, that just may, jerk your finger off, let me posit this:
What if your electrical company or water utility, required you to don a coat
and attend their offices in person when remitting your payment?
Would you obediently twinke-toe or is that hoof, over there and take off
your rain-coat to show your dress jacket while asking them to please accept
your payment?
Yes, I know my example is ridiculous, just as yours is.
Cass
"Nadyne Nelson" <nad...@prospectiveplanning.com> wrote in message
news:KdR5a.2652$ES3...@nwrddc04.gnilink.net...
Cass
her thermal underwear!
Oh, if anyone thinks what I just said was foul language, just ask Nadyne.
She says that foul language is in the mind of the reader.
She allows her 13 year-old daughter to talk to her in that way. Now, what
else does she (daughter) say? What does she say if not in Nadyne's
presence?
Oh well, it is her daughter. She will never be out in the world.
Should I be wrong, and she is invited to dinner by the company that she
works far, to see if she is management material and she spills her wine in
her lap and screeches: "AW, SHIT, look what someone made me do, she will
really make a good impression.
Cass
Cass
"Nadyne Nelson" <nad...@prospectiveplanning.com> wrote in message
news:0dQ5a.2503$ES3...@nwrddc04.gnilink.net...
> Deano,
>
> I thought once I moved to Florida, I'd no longer need my thermal
underwear!
> I was also taught "Sticks and stones will break my bones, blah, blah" so
I'm
> not too worried.
>
> Nadyne
> nad...@prospectiveplanning.com
>
> Deano wrote:
>
> > A little wordy but we are in complete agreement Nadyne. You sound
> > like a classy lady... (I just hope you're wearing your thermal
> > underware for this group though!) <vbg>
> >
> > Deano
>
>
Cass
about stealing.
These are things that school-children learn and know at an early age.
Why are you sheeple bleating to each other how this or that is or isn't
stealing?
If you don't own it, it is stealing, if you take it without permission.
Is there no end to this immaturity and stupidity?
Cass
"Nadyne Nelson" <nad...@prospectiveplanning.com> wrote in message
news:8_V5a.9582$ep5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Ben Hogland wrote:
> > stamp their bills is wrong. Just as a point of reference, my employer
> > allows any employee to use the office meter if we pay for it.
>
> I would be willing to bet that most people who use the office postage
meter
> don't pay for it. I had a friend who stopped speaking to me over this
> issue. She used her office envelopes and postage machine to mail out 6
> mortgage application packages. When she came in to work the next morning,
> she was called into her boss's office and taken to task for it. She
called
> me to ask my advice about how she should handle the fact that he OPENED
HER
> MAIL. I told her that, in my opinion, since it was in his envelope and
ran
> through his postage meter, theoretically, it was his mail. I also pointed
> out to her that she didn't have any right to do that and her reaction was
> "It was only $6.00!" I tried to get her to understand it from her
> employer's point of view. First of all, it was HIS $6.00 and it comes
right
> out of his bottom line (i.e. his PROFIT). I also reminded her that there
> were 75 other employees and if each of them did the same thing, the amount
> would be $750. She didn't get it.
>
> I always enjoyed that privilege and always paid for the stamps I used but
I
> know that most people don't. I also don't believe that the 45 people who
> worked for me were all exceptions to the rule - there wasn't one of them
who
> gave a thought to the use of my telephone account to make their personal
> calls. One woman actually quit when I gave her a bonus of $150, exactly
> $1,350 less than I had the year before. When she questioned it, I showed
> her the telephone log of phone calls to her daughter in Texas that was
over
> $1,200 - and that didn't include the hourly wage I was paying her while
she
> was making those calls. A few weeks after she quit, she sent me a note
> saying that, in retrospect, she realized she was wrong and should have
used
> her calling card to make those calls. I wrote her back a brief message -
> "Wrong answer - in retrospect, you should have made those calls from home
> and not while I was paying you to work."
>
> Ben, of course it's not stealing if someone gives you permission to use
> their stationery or you pay for your stamps. But, without express
> permission, it IS stealing, even though it's not grand theft.
>
> Nadyne Nelson
> nad...@prospectiveplanning.com
>
>
Nadyne Nelson
>
> Nadyne, attributes much of her problems to her father who told her
> that she couldn't do this, understand that, would be a flaming
> temptress to get what she wants and so on yet, it is most important
> to remember that he wasn't an abusive father.
Cass, once again you are mistaken. I blamed NONE of my problems on my
father. I don't think that learning to disrespect someone's opinion and
using that as a springboard to building my own self-esteem constitutes a
PROBLEM.
One of the reasons so few people respond to you is that you twist what they
say and spew it back with venom. It isn't necessary to comment on every
thread in every message on this board. If Ben and I want to discuss what is
and what isn't 'stealing' ad nauseum, why should it bother you? Why do you
care. Just follow your own advice and delete the messages that aren't of
interest to you.
Perhaps my daughter's advice is pertinent to you but, since you were so
offended by her use of 'foul language', let me phrase it another way.
Please don't sweat the small pieces of fecal material. Fo
Nadyne Nelson
nad...@prospectiveplanning.com
Nadyne Nelson
> Yes, Nadyne is a classy lady. However, don't be surprised if she
> 'shits' her thermal underwear!
Ha Ha. I have a colostomy and I shit a lot of things, not just my thermal
underwear! I'd like to think it doesn't take anything away from my "class."
>
> Oh, if anyone thinks what I just said was foul language, just ask
> Nadyne. She says that foul language is in the mind of the reader.
> She allows her 13 year-old daughter to talk to her in that way. Now,
> what else does she (daughter) say? What does she say if not in
> Nadyne's presence?
>
> Oh well, it is her daughter. She will never be out in the world.
You are so wrong here. My daughter IS out in the world. She has an MSW in
social work and has earned the respect of all the people she has worked
with. She is smart enough to know when it is totally inappropriate to use
'foul language' and I can assure you, when she represents her clients in
court, she maintains a totally professional posture and that is evidenced in
the glowing references and recommendations she has received from all prior
employers.
> Should I be wrong, and she is invited to dinner by the company that
> she works far, to see if she is management material and she spills
> her wine in her lap and screeches: "AW, SHIT, look what someone made
> me do, she will really make a good impression.
>
Maybe you know people who don't have enough brains or self-control to avoid
that, but my daughter and I both do. I am 59 years old and I know enough
'bad words' to form my own version of the Oxford English Dictionary yet, to
the best of my recollection, I only slipped once and used language
inappropriately. That was many, many years ago when I was driving my
mother-in-law home and someone cut me off so badly that we almost had an
accident. I shouted an obscenity at him in front of my mother-in-law,
something I had never done before and have never done since. I'm sure my
daughter has the same ability.
Oh, and, my very prim and proper mother-in-law thought my obsenity was
justified so maybe 'foul language' is in the ear of the listener and can
change based on circumstances. Just another POV.
Nadyne Nelson
nad...@prospectiveplanning.com
Cass
When I reply to folks, I usually try to take their own words and thoughts
and say the same thing using other words that I hope clarifies their
position. Little is ever gained by anyone twisting someone's words into
something totally different.
Now, my venom is purposeful and I usually use it when someone has shown that
they used it first. It is much like 'casting pearls before swine'; if the
sows show that they cannot express themselves without vitriol, I try to
respond in-kind so, that my points may be understood.
Digressing to when I first came here, I said that I believed that courtesy
and friendliness should always be foremost and the preferred way to present
anything. After it became crystal-clear that was a foreign concept to many
on this newsgroup and they began an orchestrated 'insult' campaign, that I
would respond by trying to give back better than I got. I would try to draw
them out and show them for what they are and that is 'little people'.
I was raised to be nice in spite of others being nasty and mean. The
Internet was not around back then whereby cowards could hide behind their
keyboard and say things that in person, they would never have the guts to
say to someone's face.
I also said that I would appear just as mean and foolish and ridiculous as
those who live their lives in that manner. It is the price one pays when
they do 'wrestle with pigs' - they're 'gonna' get dirty, too.
Okay, now, you say that your father wasn't abusive so, allow me to do a
'paste' of what you did say. If that isn't abusive to you then, Saddam is
your friend.
"....I learned a long time ago that it rarely pays to try to convince
someone who is narrow minded, lacks intelligence or is intolerant
that there may be some merit in another person's position. I learned to
disrespect the opinions of those I believed were too close-minded to
listen to facts or reason. That started back when I was a child and learned
to disrespect my own father's opinions about me, my friends and my
beliefs. I loved my father but if I had respected his opinion, for example,
about 'women', I would have grown up believing that I was stupid, couldn't
drive a car, couldn't balance a checkbook, would use my feminine
wiles to take advantage of men, got promoted in my job because I "slept my
way up" the ladder, and so on. That's the reason why I no longer
respond, in any way, to some posters on this list. I won't challenge someone
who is ignorant enough to make fun of the spelling of my name. "
By the way, I don't think that you were referring to me not being able to
spell your name but rather, Madee.
Also, at the very end of your post about using foul language, you defend
your 13 year-old daughter for her use of it.
Nadyne, true, she is your daughter and you can raise her to use all of the
foul language in the world. That doesn't excuse the fact that she is the
child and is supposed to be being taught good lessons and examples by an
adult - her mother.
Care to tell us what 'fo' means when you tell it to me?
You shoot yourself in the foot and don't even know it.
Cass
"Nadyne Nelson" <nad...@prospectiveplanning.com> wrote in message
news:A536a.12001$ep5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Cass
My reply will only be a copy and paste of what you said. I think it stands
on its own.
" Ha Ha. I have a colostomy and I shit a lot of things, not just my
thermal underwear! I'd like to think it doesn't take anything
away from my "class.""
Cass
"Nadyne Nelson" <nad...@prospectiveplanning.com> wrote in message
news:Ci36a.12090$ep5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Cass
You say that you can't tell Nadyne what to post but you tell her that if she
posts what you don't like, she will go in your twit filter.
Is there no end to the hypocrisy of these sheeple?
You see, GBinNC's behavior is exactly one of the reasons that I will stay
here. When folks cannot express their opinions, no matter how ridiculous
they appear to others, that is censorship and Taliban-like thinking and the
Internet is for the free exchange of information. It is not for folks to
use it as an jail or internment compound to place others in for saying
something that disagrees with them.
Rave on, GBNC, I am here for the 'duration', kiddo.
Cass
"GBinNC" <GBi...@yahoooo.com> wrote in message
news:fpgh5vcslfqkrhb4v...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 12:40:02 GMT, "Nadyne Nelson"
> <nad...@prospectiveplanning.com> wrote:
>
> >Cass wrote:
> ><appropriately snipped>
>
> Nadyne, almost everybody here has stopped trying to communicate with
> that person. Your quoting him is almost the only reason I see his crap
> any more. Everybody else who does it is in my filter, along with him.
> And although I like to read the rest of what you write, you're very
> close to joining them, for this one reason only.
>
> I can't tell you what to post, but I sure wish you wouldn't encourage
> him. If everybody stops replying to him, he'll get tired of talking to
> himself.
>
> I thought you had better judgment...
>
> GB in NC
Cass
Are you an anal-retentive? You are coming across exactly that way.
Are you a liar, too? You say that you ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that if folks
quit responding to me, I will IMMEDIATELY go elsewhere. Do you really
believe this? Do you really think that I need attention? Do you really
think that I am here just to perform for an audience?
If you think these things, you have missed everything that I have ever
mentioned about my motives for being here.
Shall I repeat them for you? No, you don't care. This is an ego thing for
you. You have allowed your little ego to control you into turning this into
a crusade to squelch me and it infuriates you that you cannot control other
folk's postings. That is fine. I am on a crusade to keep folks like you
from telling others what they can post and what they can read.
Let the music play on.
Cass
"GBinNC" <GBi...@yahoooo.com> wrote in message
news:mq3i5vcpafnbsshlv...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 13:10:14 GMT, "Nadyne Nelson"
> <nad...@prospectiveplanning.com> wrote:
>
> >If I were the only one doing it and, by doing so, I
> >was the only one encouraging him to post, I wouldn't do it.
>
> But you're ONE of the ones. If you quit that would be one less.
>
> >But, enough
> >people do respond AND, it doesn't seem to matter to him whether anyone
does
> >or not - he just keeps posting.
>
> Not so. I absolutely guarantee you that if NOBODY replied to anything
> he wrote, he would immediately go elsewhere. People like him MUST have
> an audience, and your (and others') replies -- regardless of how
> seldom they appear -- are proof to him that he has one.
>
> You are still part of his audience; I am not.
>
> GB in NC
Cass
firing this lady was gratifying. I have had to fire folks and regardless of
why they brought themselves to a point of needing to be fired, it was never,
ever gratifying.
It is a hard thing to fire someone and it should never be a pleasure unless
you have someone who has gone 'postal'.
I can only imagine that Nadyne was a tyrant since she got gratification from
causing others grief.
Cass
"Ron" <w...@where.com> wrote in message
news:mvNYPmcX54CtEG...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 13:01:50 GMT, "Nadyne Nelson"
> <nad...@prospectiveplanning.com> wrote:
>
> >I agree with you but, in the real world, it would not have worked for me.
I
> >weighed the advantages and disadvantages and came to the conclusion that
it
> >would be far more costly to fire her and train somebody new and I was
> >working under critical deadlines and could not afford to lose that time
and
> >productivity. I figured out a way to make myself 'whole' financially
and,
> >when I no longer needed her and she quit, it was not detrimental to my
> >project.
> >
> Nadyne,
>
> As long as the subject is honesty, I find the above to be quite
> dishonest. You lacked the intestinal fortitude to confront her, so you
> planned a time when it was a financially benefit to do so. Had you
> approached her at the onset, you probably could have nipped the whole
> thing in the bud and not have needed to be sneaky. I believe the only
> correct approach to honesty is with all the cards on the table.
>
> You used what's called "situation ethics".
>
> "Well, I'm not a crook" . . . Richard M. Nixon, a man who was a master
> of situation ethics.
>
> Ron
Mike F
gratifying. They cost money, drag down morale, thus cost more money, eat up
management's time, thus cost MORE money, set bad examples some others
emulate, thus cost MORE money, and in the business I left behind, compromise
national security.
Fire 'em, prosecute 'em, and in the latter case, rope 'em to one of Saddam's
known WMD tunnel entrances.
Some people deserve all the grief we can give 'em.
Mike
"Cass" <PlEASE,NOSPAMcas...@galaxycorp.com> wrote in message
news:b3b59a$2a9$0...@pita.alt.net...
Cass
delinquents" , you don't know that they inhaled.
Cass
"Will Sill" <wi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:sqgh5vguu22shdrb3...@4ax.com...
> DonLa...@webtv.net (Guess Who?) recently wrote these words:
>
> > Those who protested the Vietnam War were supporting the troops by
> >getting them out of a war they were drafted to fight.
> > We fought eight years, in an area from LA to San Fransisco. That was
> >more than the President did!
>
> And how many thousands of our young men died in that fruitless war
> precisely because you yellow-bellied protestors influenced our
> limp-wristed leaders to DENY THEM PERMISSION TO WIN?
>
> The cause was just, the military was ready and able to WIN, but they
> were REFUSED PERMISSION to take out the enemy.
>
> You and your fellow unwashed pot-smoking delinquents probably had NO
> IDEA that the people who organized your riots and printed the signs
> were working for the CPUSA - the SAME crowd that is behind today's
> protests. WHY are they behind it? Because their goal is, has been,
> and continues to be the destruction of your way of life and the
> establishment of a "dictatorship of the proletariat".
>
> You make me want to puke.
>
> Will Sill
Cass
On second thought, he was, too, in a lot of dresses
Cass
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:3E58FAAC...@direcway.com...
> Guess Who? wrote:
> > Those who protested the Vietnam War were supporting the troops by
> > getting them out of a war they were drafted to fight.
>
> General Giap of the North Vietnamese Army says the protesters won
> the war for him. They were ready to throw in the towel but the
> actions of the protesters convinced them to hang in there.
>
> You can lie to yourself if you like, but he is in a better
> position to judge than your touchy-feely vibrations.
>
> > We fought eight years, in an area from LA to San Fransisco. That was
> > more than the President did!
> > Don
>
> Or Clinton. Clinton furnished aid and comfort to the Communist
> side, just another Jane Fonda only not in a dress.
> LZ
>
> >
>
>
Cass
one-liners as they always do when they get shown for what they are.
Cass
"Ben Hogland" <benho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b39624$1jadeg$1...@ID-62937.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Bob Giddings" <bo...@igg-tx.net> wrote in message
> news:ec6g5vomdhr12rea6...@4ax.com...
> > Not to be ilker than thou, but what about a hat with this on it:
> >
> > Got Ilk?
>
> You've been watching too much TV.. <g>
>
> Ben
>
>
Cass
How many times are you going to say that you have how many people filtered
and yet you seem to be up to date with what your 'filtered' folks post.
Yes, I know, it is because they are quoted by someone else.
When you see that they are, indeed, quoted by someone else, why do you read
there posts? Remember, you have them filtered because you don't have enough
guts to control yourself and handle what you read.
Disgusting!
Cass
"Ben Hogland" <benho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b38not$1i45tm$1...@ID-62937.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Randy and Cheyanne Gore" <alg...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
> news:18Q5a.1202$vf5.9...@feed2.centurytel.net...
>
> > I remembered Will saying that, Ben, just didn't know how to find it to
> > prove it to old Lon. Wonder what excuse Lonny will make for his sweetie
> > this time, with the proof in print?
>
> His anti-American post is very memorable since it shows his true colors
thus
> I knew exactly where to find it.. Actually, I have Will Sill filtered
here
> at home but I read the NG after hours occasionally from my work computer.
I
> use a web based news reader without a filter and saw that post of his..
I'm
> sure Lon will either ignore it or somehow say Will Sill didn't imply what
he
> said. <g>
>
> Ben
>
>
Cass
What am I in your filter for?
Cass
"Ben Hogland" <benho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b3beh2$1k4q0k$1...@ID-62937.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
> news:3E5930C5...@direcway.com...
>
> >
> > Don't stumble over anything while you have both eyes shut.
> > LZ
>
> Not to worry, it's easy not to trip over a few small pebbles even with a
> blind-fold on.
>
> Will Sill and Tom Shaw are the only ones in my filter due to being
> anti-American. They are a special *ilk* that don't include the far
majority
> here.
>
> Ben
>
>
Deano
"Dusty" <dus...@innerlodge.com> wrote in message
news:v52elo3...@corp.supernews.com...
> Yeah! You got it Deano! You managed, all by your simple little old self,
> to decode the secret conservative underworld connections and come up with
> your illuminating diatribe.
Funny thing is, all I was doing was taking your rant and turning it directly
back onto you. Didn't like it much did you?
> Perhaps you'd be so kind as to present to the readership here, your
> "learned left-wing" source for the M1A1 milage that was presented here by
> one of your cohorts, as fact?
Hell if I know, that wasn't my post...
> Or perhaps you'd rather present to the readership here the source of the
> constant left-wing assertion that 13 out of 16 constitutes
> "unilateralism!"
Nope, wasn't me you silly goose....
> Or perhaps you'd like to present to the readership here the source of the
> liberal left's "hate" for a conservative, hispanic, federal judge
> candidate.
We don't typically as a group decide amongst ourselves how to look at any
given subject or situation... We don't have a Rush Limbaugh or Newsmax to
tell us what to think... (That's your side remember?)
> If you'd actually listen to Rush, Savage, or actually read Drudge--instead
> of the left-wing marching slogans that you usually read; you'd find that
> they *do* hate. They hate ignorance! They hate laziness! They hate
> self-serving arrogance! They hate those that are brazenly anti-American!
> They hate apologists for sadistic dictators and raving socialists! They
> hate people that call a tax cut for ALL TAX PAYERS, a tax-break for the
> rich! They hate ideologs that want to tear down my adopted country! Yes.
They
> do practice hate. But they also worship independence. Individualism.
> Hard work. And freedom--something you seem to have lost...
Wow, that's a lot of hate, you sure you didn't leave a few out? (Like
pretty much the rest of the entire world?)
> Only someone breft of understanding and the ability to think things
> through as yourself would hold views like yours so near and dear. But
> don't worry, I have found that many equally uninformed and ignorant people
share
> your opinion. You should at least be able to take some comfort in that...
> Later,
> Dusty
Thank you for all that, I'm sure you meant it in the kindest possible way,
but I'm still left to believe that you are a typical cold harded, foaming
about the mouth right wing lunatic... I wish you well though...
Deano
Cass
What u-boats were you in?
Cass
"Don Anderson" <sne...@NOSPAMspamcop.net> wrote in message
news:txb6a.296$xZ7...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Chris Bryant" <Bryan...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:iibi5vs3cv4ab054m...@4ax.com...
> > unkadean wrote:
> >
> >
> > <<..>>
> > >Liberal cowards always resort to personal attacks when their reasoned
> > >factual arguments fail. That typically takes less than one sentence!.
> > >
> > >Sorry, Chris, but you will be shown wrong. Then will you just STFU?
> > >
> >
> > Holy cow- another one- getting even more bent out of shape.
> > Well, heck- at least you have actually participated here- unlike the
> > guy I was actually speaking to.
> > But- whatever. I guess if I just start insulting and berating
> > everyone I disagree with- that would be OK, then? That seems like what
> > I am reading.
> >
> > P.S.- if you really want me to STFU, I will certainly be glad to
> > leave- no skin off my nose.
> > --
> > Chris Bryant
> > Bryant RV Services- http://www.bryantrv.com
>
> Should you decide to leave, please let me know where you'll hang out,
Chris.
> And before those folks who wrap themselves with the flag and point fingers
> have a stroke reading this, I should preface this message with my
> credentials. They include over 20 years military service starting in 1956
> and going right through Vietnam, much of which was spent on diesel and
> nuclear submarines in the "Cold War" period doing things I'm still unable
to
> talk about. Oh yah, retired on 60% service connected disability. Father
> also a submariner, WW1 (USS N3, hull 55), brother, Army Air Force, WW2,
son,
> Air Farce, post Vietnam.
>
> In other words, I did my time and I'm proud of it. I love my country as
> did/does my entire family but I too am against unilaterally invading Iraq
> without absolute irrefutable proof of what I consider major and current
> warlike acts against the US, not Israel or anywhere else unless it
directly
> causes harm to our citizens within the USA. OBTW, I've been voting
mostly
> straight Republican since 1958, so bleeding heart liberal is not my middle
> name.
>
> With that said, I also carry a deep distrust for what passes for "Straight
> truth" coming from inside the beltway. (Spin City) In spite of that
> distrust, I think we still have the greatest democratic society in the
> world. Should we disagree with our leaders, it's our right and the folks
> who publicly call you or me a traitor or denigrating us personally while
> expressing our right are no different than those who actively and
viciously
> oppose the right to bear arms....
>
>
> Don
>
>
>
>
>
>