My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the
Orange County Register which, of course, was not printed. So I decided
to "print" it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Please pass
it along if you feel so inclined. Thank you.
(signed) Dave LaBonte
Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the Orange
County Register:
Dear Editor:
So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this
land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should
tear down the Statute of Liberty because the people now in question
aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island
and other ports of entry.
Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to
people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept
this new kind of immigrant any longer.
Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to
come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a
long line in New York and be documented. S ome would even get down on
their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to
uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times.
They made learning English a primary rule in their new American
households and some even changed their names to blend in with their
new home.
They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their
children a new life and did everything in their power to help their
children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No
free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had
were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade
for a future of prosperity. Most of their children came of age when
World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents
had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France and Japan. None of
these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what
country their parents had come from.
They were Americans fighting Hilter, Mussolini and the Emperor
of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one
people. When we liberated France, no one in those villages was looking
for the French-American or the German-American or the Irish-American.
The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that
represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have
thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to
represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their
parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly
knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot
into one red, white and blue bowl.
And here we are in 2006 with a new kind of immigrant who wants
the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by
playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the
entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother
country. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I
believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early
1900s deserve better than that for the toil, hard work and sacrifice
in raising future generations to create a land that has be-come a
beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they
would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those
waving foreign country flags.
And for that suggestion about taking down the Statute of
Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on
the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the
United States just yet.
(signed) Rosemary LaBonte
P.S. Pass this on to everyone you know!!! KEEP THIS LETTER MOVING!! I
hope this letter gets read by millions of people all across the
nation!! ~~ r.p.
"Learn as if you were going to live forever. Live as if you were going
to die tomorrow." - Mahatma Gandhi
No there is a comparison, Those are to illnesses that are terrible to deal
with however if you play you might end up paying. So back in the world of
News groups and internet where my comment was directed as to the subjects.
Freedom of speech in this country is a right, steeling someone else's
property is not acceptable in any country and in some cases the property
owner will shoot the crook with my regards, I hate thief's. As someone that
created a program to use at my last place of employment where as the owner
tried to claim they owned my software solely created at my home on my time.
This particular comment on my side hits very close to home, btw I have the
only copies of my software goto love FDISK on a system with all your
software on it! So free speech go for it, steeling forget it. It would
make someone wonder where someone else's moral boundaries are. You can do
what you want I know I have a clear conscious when it comes to this topic.
Al
Once again pinions are like A@#wholes everyone has one including me!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Al wrote:
>> Well if it against the AUP that's all good however something like this is
>> more acceptable to me then the posting of copywriten and or pirated
>> software
>> that is seen so much on these things. Don't you agree?
>>
>
> Chlamydia is better than gonorrhea, don't you agree?
>
> --
>
> FF
>
Han wrote:
> [email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> <a whole lot of nonsense>
>
> Here is my "nonsense":
>
> The Boston Teaparty and the Revolutionary War were conducted by a bunch of
> terrorists against the established lawfull government. Many people
> immigrated to the US under false pretenses (WWII war criminals, mafiosi,
> etc).
Sorry Han. The founding fathers were not terrorists. They didn't
seek to indiscriminantly kill innocent men, women and children.
Unlike terrorists, they didn't plant bombs in shops, churchs, or town
centers to kill anyone, because they had moral values and common
decency still shared by the vast majority of Americans today. They
valued human life and only attacked legitimate targets of the British
colonial govt. Last time I checked, the Boston Teaparty you cited
consisted of throwing tea in the harbor, not deliberately killing
innocent civilians to create terror. To compare them to true
terrorists is offensive and can only give aid and comfort to an enemy
that is out to destroy us all.
As for the OP's wife's letter, it sounds spot on to me. I hope she
sends it to other papers so that it will get published.
>
> Like the import of illegal drugs, import of illegal workers is (in large
> part) organized by home town demand. Who is doing the day labor in your
> town, local high school and college graduates?
>
> --
> Best regards
> Han
> email address is invalid
Do the John Emmons's of the world, with their ideas of moral
equivalency ever follow the news? There are certain inflection points
in most conflicts where it's painfully obvious which side is right and
which side is wrong.
Look at events in the middle east over recent years. For decades
Israel tried to negotiate with Arafat to reach some kind of accord
where Israel and the Palestinians could coexist. In keeping with the
"Can't we all get along?" approach, during the Clinton administration,
Arafat was at the White House more frequently than any other head of
state. Despite the best efforts of Clinton and enticements of huge
amounts of aid to the Palestinians, no agreement could be reached,
despite every attempt to be reasonable with Arafat.
So, a couple years ago, Sharon finally decides to unilaterally give the
Palestinians much of what they could have had decades ago, had they
been willing to negotiate in good faith. He dismantles settlements on
the West Bank and returns Gaza to Palestinian control, a good first
step. What is the reaction from the Palestinians? Do they now do
something positive to meet Israel half way? No, they elect Hamas, a
terrorist organization with the stated goal of destroying Israel to be
their new govt.
Let's look at Lebanon. Israel occupied souther Lebanon in the early
80's because it was being used as a staging area to attack Israeil
There were a UN resolutions calling for Israel to withdraw and for
Lebanon's military to assert control of southern Lebanon. Israel
withdrew from Lebanon 6 years ago, but Lebanon never took control of
southern Lebanon and knowingly allowed Hezbollah to use it as a staging
area. Hezbollah was formed two decades ago with the alleged purpose
of driving Israel out of Lebanaon. Israel has been out of Lebanon for
6 years, giving Hezbollah exactly what they wanted, yet now Hezbollah
starts launching thousands of rockets from Lebanon into Israel.
The above is enough for any fair minded person to conclude which side
is reasonable and really seeking peace and which side is totally
unreasonable and hell bent on continuing the violence at any cost.
Hedley wrote:
> The animals we are dealing with in the middle east are further up aga=
inst
> the wall than pre-Revolutionary War Americans ever were.=A0=A0They=A0=
are
> desperate, starving, uneducated, and totally without hope.=A0=A0And=A0=
their
> leaders fill these starving ingorants with a perverted religious ferv=
or to
> make them do stupid things.
That's a very good summary. However, it doesn't solve the problem. Th=
ere are
only 3 solutions. Give them what they want, isolate them, or extermina=
te
them. Since options one and three are unlikely, we're left with isolat=
ion.=20
And, as you point out, that won't work until we give up on using their =
oil.
BTW, killing the leaders, while an attractive alternative, won't work. =
The
peasantry is so well indoctrinated that they'd just keep creating more =
of the
same.
Now that I've irritated the liberals, I'll do the same for the conserva=
tives
by pointing out that the west (UN, US and Britain) share some of the bl=
ame
for invading the area in the first place (Britain), carving out the sta=
te of
Israel in a fit of well-deserved guilt (UN), and meddling in Arab polit=
ics to
keep access to their oil (US). Remember when we considered Saddam one =
of the
good guys?
--=20
It's turtles, all the way down
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:40:03 GMT, "John Emmons" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I wasn't "suggesting" anything, I was making an observation about hypocrisy.
>Something the the entire world needs to better examine. Like the hypocrisy
>of a nation built on immigration trying to blame immigrants for all the
>problems in society.
>
>As for condemning horrendous acts, I'm all for it, let's all condemn all
>horrendous acts, those committed by our enemies and those committed by our
>allies.
>
>I think you'll find that if you look at things objectively that pretty much
>every nation has from time to time committed some pretty atrocious acts
>against fellow humans, the U.S. isn't immune, nor are other so called
>civilised nations.
>
... and most civilized nations when they have done so have acted to
redress those ills.
>All I'm saying is that nobody's hands are clean. Sure some are dirtier than
>others, that's not really the point is it? Does it make you feel better if
>you can say that you committed fewer atrocities than did your enemy?
>Claiming the moral high ground when you aid and abet the killing of innocent
>civilians is a pretty tough act to try and pull off. That applies to all
>sides of all conflicts. And the sooner we realise that, the sooner the world
>might just be better off. Unless everyone is happy living a life of denial
>and rationalisation.
>
>Which seems to be the case, sadly enough.
No, what seems to be the case is some people will use the "moral
equivalency" argument to justify darn near anything, no matter how
horrendous or atrocious the act. To the point that "But *we* made them go
for hours without sleep", or "*we* made them wear women's panties on their
heads" is now considered rationalization and justification for someone
taking another hostage, then slicing off their heads in front of a video
camera. The moral equivalency adherents are quick to indicate that those
acts of "torture" are sufficient provocation for the real torture of having
one's throat cut.
>
>As for using civilians, what would you have them do? While not excusing
>their atrocious behaviour, they're outnumbered, outgunned, etc. They fight
>the people that they consider their enemies the only way they can, seems to
>me that there were some people here in what's known as the U.S. who wore
>civilian clothes, hid behind trees and walls to shoot down their enemies
>too. They did what they did to whom they did the only way they knew how.
>It's all wrong. To the islamic militants of the world, it's a fight for what
>they consider their souls, you don't have to agree with them to understand
>that.
>
OK, let's see. The terrorists launch suicide bombers into Israel, launch
rockets from civilian homes in Lebanon into Israel to kill civilians (no
military targets seem to be deliberately targeted). During the recent
conflict, the only real military objectives attacked seems to have been the
skirmish and kidnapping of several Israelli soldiers. ... and this helps
the terrorist's quest for freedom, how?
During the recent activities, Israel places tanks and troops on Lebanon's
border and bombs locations of terrorist rocket emplacements and storage.
The terrorists respond by firing rockets on civilians in Israel. Israel
enters Lebanon with tanks and troops, targeting terrorists who don't wear
uniforms and who deliberately place their weapons in and around civilians
and UN emplacements. The terrorists respond by launching rockets at
civilians in Israel. The Israelis destroy said emplacements and rocket
launch sites, unfortunately because the terrorists have deliberately placed
them at civilian locations (and because terrorists don't wear uniforms),
civilians are accidentally killed. The world condemns Israel for killing
civilians. Meanwhile, the terrorists launch more missiles into Israel
targeting civilians.
The point of the above paragraph? There are two points (and a half).
First, the "moral equivalence" adherents will raise the cry that the
terrorists are justified in what they are doing because they are outgunned
and can't really defeat the Israeli army (who, by the way would *not* be
firing at the terrorists if the terrorists weren't shooting at Israel).
Again the question, how does attacking civilians in Israel help the
terrorists in their search for freedom? Second point, this is a really
stupid strategic maneuver -- why are the terrorists shooting at civilians
10's of miles into Israel and complaining about being overrun by the
Israelli army? Why aren't they firing those rockets at the Israeli army?
Wouldn't that be more logical? At a minimum, it would allow them to at
least slow down the advancing troops and get their civilians out of harm's
way if that was really their concern. The half a point? Why is it that
the world is outraged at Israel when civilians are accidentally killed
after they, or their nominal government allowed weapons caches and launch
areas to be set up in civlian areas, around civilians, and manned by
non-uniformed terrorists who look like civilians? Why isn't the ire
directed at the government of that country for the failing to protect its
citizens, at the citizens for allowing this to happen, and at the UN for
failing to enforce its resolutions?
Now, the final point. What the @#$% are you talking about when you go on
with the moral equivalence argument that these people are just fighting for
their freedom? These people have avowed that their idea of freedom is: a)
Israel is wiped off the map, b) their desired home country becomes an
Islamo-fascist Shariah law paradise in which their women are considered
chattel and infidels and dissidents have their arms or heads lopped off.
... and this is somehow the moral equivalent of a group of people who
banded together to throw off an oppressive government that was yoking them
with ever-increasing taxes, forcing them to quarter troops in their homes,
and other oppressive regulations. Their rebellion was in order to form a
country in which the citizens were allowed to be the best they can be and
to live their own lives in freedom to worship as they please and to express
their opinions about the world no matter how absurd. As far as your remark
regarding people hiding behind trees and shooting at others -- there goes
your moral equivalency silliness again, just because the Americans didn't
buy into the European model for warfare in which two opposing groups of
armed personnel marched at one another until they met and then slaughtered
one another, they were still engaging military tactical and strategic
targets. To be equivalent to your current "freedom fighters", they would
have had to go to England and start shooting civlians in London while the
British troops were attacking military posts in the colonies.
... and to call that "hypocritical" is well, silly.
>John E.
>
>"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
>news:300720061306531496%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> John Emmons <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Seems more than just a bit hypocritical for citizens of a nation who
>> > committed what was then considered treason to condemn the actions of
>others
>> > in seeking their own freedoms,
>>
>> Your'e not seriously suggesting that because someone committed a
>> horrendous act sometime in the past people living today are not
>> entitled to condemn horrendous acts, are you?
>>
>> > while the deliberate targeting of civilians
>> > is reprehensible, lets not forget that one of the former Prime Ministers
>of
>> > Israel was a terrorist according to modern definitions. If Hezbollah and
>> > Hamas are terrorists and killers, and there's little doubt that they
>are,
>> > what does it say about their enemies when they kill innocent people to
>> > pursue the bad guys? It's only collateral damage when it's someone
>else's
>> > family I suppose.
>>
>> Hezbollah deliberately uses civilians as shields for their missile
>> launches. They wear civilian clothing. They violate recognized
>> international rules of warfare.
>>
>> Israel does not. Israel warns civilians abot impending attacks, to the
>> point of phoning people in Gaza to tell them to get out of the
>> building.
>>
>> The civilian deaths in Lebanon are a direct result of how Hezbollah
>> behaves.
>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
In article <[email protected]>, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Why is it that
> the world is outraged at Israel when civilians are accidentally killed
> after they, or their nominal government allowed weapons caches and launch
> areas to be set up in civlian areas, around civilians, and manned by
> non-uniformed terrorists who look like civilians? Why isn't the ire
> directed at the government of that country for the failing to protect its
> citizens, at the citizens for allowing this to happen, and at the UN for
> failing to enforce its resolutions?
Israel is, of course, entirely justified in defending itself. The world
gets upset, however, when it uses its *army* to do this.
My own opinion is that it's time to support Israel in DESTROYING
Hezbollah. Completely and utterly.
The Arab/Muslim world understands humiliation and defeat. It does not
negotiate in good faith, nor does it feel it has to. The Koran allows,
nay demands, lies and deception when dealing with infidels.
In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Now that I've irritated the liberals, I'll do the same for the conservatives
> by pointing out that the west (UN, US and Britain) share some of the blame
> for invading the area in the first place (Britain), carving out the state of
> Israel in a fit of well-deserved guilt (UN), and meddling in Arab politics to
> keep access to their oil (US).
A bit more complicated than that, but it's a decent nickle tour. The
poliitical division of the entire area after the fall of the Ottomans
was a complete cluster-fuck and certainly set the stage for the mess
the region is today. The meddling after the fact was largely driven by
the cold war and the west's battle against Soviet communism with oil at
the center.
> OK, let's see. The terrorists launch suicide bombers into Israel, launch
> rockets from civilian homes in Lebanon into Israel to kill civilians (no
> military targets seem to be deliberately targeted). During the recent
> conflict, the only real military objectives attacked seems to have been
> the
> skirmish and kidnapping of several Israelli soldiers. ... and this helps
> the terrorist's quest for freedom, how?
>
> During the recent activities, Israel places tanks and troops on Lebanon's
> border and bombs locations of terrorist rocket emplacements and storage.
> The terrorists respond by firing rockets on civilians in Israel. Israel
> enters Lebanon with tanks and troops, targeting terrorists who don't wear
> uniforms and who deliberately place their weapons in and around civilians
> and UN emplacements. The terrorists respond by launching rockets at
> civilians in Israel. The Israelis destroy said emplacements and rocket
> launch sites, unfortunately because the terrorists have deliberately
> placed
> them at civilian locations (and because terrorists don't wear uniforms),
> civilians are accidentally killed. The world condemns Israel for killing
> civilians. Meanwhile, the terrorists launch more missiles into Israel
> targeting civilians.
>
> The point of the above paragraph? There are two points (and a half).
> First, the "moral equivalence" adherents will raise the cry that the
> terrorists are justified in what they are doing because they are outgunned
> and can't really defeat the Israeli army (who, by the way would *not* be
> firing at the terrorists if the terrorists weren't shooting at Israel).
> Again the question, how does attacking civilians in Israel help the
> terrorists in their search for freedom? Second point, this is a really
> stupid strategic maneuver -- why are the terrorists shooting at civilians
> 10's of miles into Israel and complaining about being overrun by the
> Israelli army? Why aren't they firing those rockets at the Israeli army?
> Wouldn't that be more logical? At a minimum, it would allow them to at
> least slow down the advancing troops and get their civilians out of harm's
> way if that was really their concern. The half a point? Why is it that
> the world is outraged at Israel when civilians are accidentally killed
> after they, or their nominal government allowed weapons caches and launch
> areas to be set up in civlian areas, around civilians, and manned by
> non-uniformed terrorists who look like civilians? Why isn't the ire
> directed at the government of that country for the failing to protect its
> citizens, at the citizens for allowing this to happen, and at the UN for
> failing to enforce its resolutions?
>
>
> Now, the final point. What the @#$% are you talking about when you go on
> with the moral equivalence argument that these people are just fighting
> for
> their freedom? These people have avowed that their idea of freedom is: a)
> Israel is wiped off the map, b) their desired home country becomes an
> Islamo-fascist Shariah law paradise in which their women are considered
> chattel and infidels and dissidents have their arms or heads lopped off.
> ... and this is somehow the moral equivalent of a group of people who
> banded together to throw off an oppressive government that was yoking them
> with ever-increasing taxes, forcing them to quarter troops in their homes,
> and other oppressive regulations. Their rebellion was in order to form a
> country in which the citizens were allowed to be the best they can be and
> to live their own lives in freedom to worship as they please and to
> express
> their opinions about the world no matter how absurd. As far as your
> remark
> regarding people hiding behind trees and shooting at others -- there goes
> your moral equivalency silliness again, just because the Americans didn't
> buy into the European model for warfare in which two opposing groups of
> armed personnel marched at one another until they met and then slaughtered
> one another, they were still engaging military tactical and strategic
> targets. To be equivalent to your current "freedom fighters", they would
> have had to go to England and start shooting civlians in London while the
> British troops were attacking military posts in the colonies.
>
> ... and to call that "hypocritical" is well, silly.
>
One minor point, and I hate that it contradicts an otherwise impressive
argument...
Put yourself in the uptight Brit's shoes circa the 1770's... after decades
of fighting "civilized" war in which you face your opponent openly on the
battlefield, suddenly you are faced with a new kind of war. The opponent
hides from your formations and uses the barbaric strategies of guerilla
warfare to enable his smaller forces to have a chance. I'm sure they were
appalled.
The BIG difference these days, it seems, is that any morality has gone out
of it. The thing of it is, the Americans didn't involve civilians as
shields and didn't target civilians as a rule, but they did take some of the
"honor" out of war - if war can actually have it. I speak of the "honor"
defined by the prevailing power of the time - the Brtis. They pretty much
defined warfare at the time.
The animals we are dealing with in the middle east are further up against
the wall than pre-Revolutionary War Americans ever were. They are
desperate, starving, uneducated, and totally without hope. And their
leaders fill these starving ingorants with a perverted religious fervor to
make them do stupid things.
I hope I live to see the day when oil is no longer important. The middle
east will make North Africa look like the land of plenty and the Islamists
can go back to what they want to do.
And no one will give a rat's ass.
<<snip>>
In article <[email protected]>,
Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> Now that I've irritated the liberals, I'll do the same for the conservatives
> by pointing out that the west (UN, US and Britain) share some of the blame
> for invading the area in the first place (Britain), carving out the state of
> Israel in a fit of well-deserved guilt (UN), and meddling in Arab politics to
> keep access to their oil (US). Remember when we considered Saddam one of the
> good guys?
The West has been hopelessly floundering around in the area since the
earliest days of "colonizing" the area. Nothin' to indicate anyone in
the West has any better understanding of what is happening there than in
the past.
In article <[email protected]>,
"Hedley" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Put yourself in the uptight Brit's shoes circa the 1770's... after decades
> of fighting "civilized" war in which you face your opponent openly on the
> battlefield, suddenly you are faced with a new kind of war. The opponent
> hides from your formations and uses the barbaric strategies of guerilla
> warfare to enable his smaller forces to have a chance. I'm sure they were
> appalled.
"Civilized" war is just war fought by rules invented to make the bigger
guy win. If you fight by his rules you are guaranteed to lose.
--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
[email protected] wrote:
> Han wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:
> >
> > <a whole lot of nonsense>
> >
> > Here is my "nonsense":
> >
> > The Boston Teaparty and the Revolutionary War were conducted by a bunch of
> > terrorists against the established lawfull government. Many people
> > immigrated to the US under false pretenses (WWII war criminals, mafiosi,
> > etc).
>
>
> Sorry Han. The founding fathers were not terrorists. They didn't
> seek to indiscriminantly kill innocent men, women and children.
> Unlike terrorists, they didn't plant bombs in shops, churchs, or town
> centers to kill anyone, because they had moral values and common
> decency still shared by the vast majority of Americans today. They
> valued human life and only attacked legitimate targets of the British
> colonial govt. Last time I checked, the Boston Teaparty you cited
> consisted of throwing tea in the harbor, not deliberately killing
> innocent civilians to create terror. To compare them to true
> terrorists is offensive and can only give aid and comfort to an enemy
> that is out to destroy us all.
>
> As for the OP's wife's letter, it sounds spot on to me. I hope she
> sends it to other papers so that it will get published.
>
>
>
> >
> > Like the import of illegal drugs, import of illegal workers is (in large
> > part) organized by home town demand. Who is doing the day labor in your
> > town, local high school and college graduates?
> >
> > --
> > Best regards
> > Han
> > email address is invalid
Your argument is as invalid as your email address.
There were lots of burning down of buildings and shootings and
lynchings of folks on the wrong side of the argument. This is discussed
weekly on South Carolina Educational radio with great relish.
TB
In article <[email protected]>, Prometheus
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:13:28 -0600, Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >John Emmons <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> To the islamic militants of the world, it's a fight for what
> >> they consider their souls, you don't have to agree with them to understand
> >> that.
> >
> >You're wrong. To them, it's a fight to take over the world and destroy
> >other cultures and religions.
>
> You mean like corporate America? Could you really say that the end
> intention of companies like WalMart, McDonald's and Coca Cola isn't to
> corner the global market on their ever-expanding niches and replace
> the local cultures with a homgenized general pop culture? It's a
> whole lot easier to make 6 billion of the same crappy widget than it
> is to research every distinct cultural identity and tailor their
> pruduct lines. (That isn't to say that doesn't happen, but it's done
> with roughly the same ethic used to put mom and pop shops out of
> business with super low prices, and then jack them back up when there
> is no longer an alternative.)
>
> >They don't want to be left alone by Israel, they want to destroy Israel
> >and kill every living Jew.
> >
> >They don't want to accomodate or be accomodated by the West, they want
> >to destroy what we've built, our civilization, and replace it with what
> >the Taliban accomplished in Afghanistan.
>
> See above. We (not you or I individually, but the West as a whole)
> are trying to do the same thing to them. Our government(s) will never
> be happy until everyone on the planet is wearing Levi Jeans and
> watching MTV while sipping Coke and eating Doritos. I say we just let
> the people elsewhere just do what they think they need to do, and stop
> sticking CEO fingers in their pies. Of course by now, it's getting to
> be a little late in the game to pack up our toys and go home.
If you can honestly equate 16 year olds with explosives strapped to
their waists blowing themselves up in buses filled with innocent women
and children to selling people Coke and Levis, then I feel very, very
sorry for you, believe you have a mental disease of some kind, and no
longer wish to converse with you in any form.
Good bye.
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:13:28 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>John Emmons <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> To the islamic militants of the world, it's a fight for what
>> they consider their souls, you don't have to agree with them to understand
>> that.
>
>You're wrong. To them, it's a fight to take over the world and destroy
>other cultures and religions.
You mean like corporate America? Could you really say that the end
intention of companies like WalMart, McDonald's and Coca Cola isn't to
corner the global market on their ever-expanding niches and replace
the local cultures with a homgenized general pop culture? It's a
whole lot easier to make 6 billion of the same crappy widget than it
is to research every distinct cultural identity and tailor their
pruduct lines. (That isn't to say that doesn't happen, but it's done
with roughly the same ethic used to put mom and pop shops out of
business with super low prices, and then jack them back up when there
is no longer an alternative.)
>They don't want to be left alone by Israel, they want to destroy Israel
>and kill every living Jew.
>
>They don't want to accomodate or be accomodated by the West, they want
>to destroy what we've built, our civilization, and replace it with what
>the Taliban accomplished in Afghanistan.
See above. We (not you or I individually, but the West as a whole)
are trying to do the same thing to them. Our government(s) will never
be happy until everyone on the planet is wearing Levi Jeans and
watching MTV while sipping Coke and eating Doritos. I say we just let
the people elsewhere just do what they think they need to do, and stop
sticking CEO fingers in their pies. Of course by now, it's getting to
be a little late in the game to pack up our toys and go home.
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Han wrote:
> > > [email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:
> > >
> > > <a whole lot of nonsense>
> > >
> > > Here is my "nonsense":
> > >
> > > The Boston Teaparty and the Revolutionary War were conducted by a bunch of
> > > terrorists against the established lawfull government. Many people
> > > immigrated to the US under false pretenses (WWII war criminals, mafiosi,
> > > etc).
> >
> >
> > Sorry Han. The founding fathers were not terrorists. They didn't
> > seek to indiscriminantly kill innocent men, women and children.
> > Unlike terrorists, they didn't plant bombs in shops, churchs, or town
> > centers to kill anyone, because they had moral values and common
> > decency still shared by the vast majority of Americans today. They
> > valued human life and only attacked legitimate targets of the British
> > colonial govt. Last time I checked, the Boston Teaparty you cited
> > consisted of throwing tea in the harbor, not deliberately killing
> > innocent civilians to create terror. To compare them to true
> > terrorists is offensive and can only give aid and comfort to an enemy
> > that is out to destroy us all.
> >
> > As for the OP's wife's letter, it sounds spot on to me. I hope she
> > sends it to other papers so that it will get published.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Like the import of illegal drugs, import of illegal workers is (in large
> > > part) organized by home town demand. Who is doing the day labor in your
> > > town, local high school and college graduates?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards
> > > Han
> > > email address is invalid
>
> Your argument is as invalid as your email address.
>
> There were lots of burning down of buildings and shootings and
> lynchings of folks on the wrong side of the argument. This is discussed
> weekly on South Carolina Educational radio with great relish.
> TB
During the revolutionary war American patriots did not indiscriminantly
kill innocent men, women and children. And if that is what SC
Educational radio is claiming, then they are a bunch of commie pinko
bedwetters, like you.
Keith Williams wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
> ...
>
> Stuff I've read said that there were only those three until August
> '45, but that one Pu bomb could be manufacturered every three weeks
> (U235 was too difficult to separate hence the reason for the Pu
> research in the first place). The Manhattan project wasn't just a
> research program, rather manufacturing.
>
Yes. The Manhattan project only produced three bombs because
production was halted in August 1945. Components for a fourth
were in transit to the Pacific theater at the time, and production was
being ramped up to prduce several per month by the end of 1945.
--
FF
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 04:14:26 GMT, "Hedley" <[email protected]>
wrote:
... snip
>>
>
>
>One minor point, and I hate that it contradicts an otherwise impressive
>argument...
>
>Put yourself in the uptight Brit's shoes circa the 1770's... after decades
>of fighting "civilized" war in which you face your opponent openly on the
>battlefield, suddenly you are faced with a new kind of war. The opponent
>hides from your formations and uses the barbaric strategies of guerilla
>warfare to enable his smaller forces to have a chance. I'm sure they were
>appalled.
>
I don't disagree with that viewpoint to a degree; although the prevailing
idea of "civilized" war was quite a nasty thing when viewed logically --
and that would be whether one was viewing it as someone vastly outgunned or
just as an outside observer.
>The animals we are dealing with in the middle east are further up against
>the wall than pre-Revolutionary War Americans ever were. They are
>desperate, starving, uneducated, and totally without hope. And their
>leaders fill these starving ingorants with a perverted religious fervor to
>make them do stupid things.
>
.. and the silly thing about it is that all of the oil that really could
feed and prosper those people is in the hands of those with whom they are
mostly in agreement religion-wise. The whole situation is nonsensical:
Iranians could be a rich and prosperous country but they are bent on
erecting a radical Islamic curtain and becoming a nuclear power to further
their delusions of jihadist victory. Same for Syria, Libya, and more
recently Iraq. All of those countries could be prosperous, reasonable
members of a very rational trading world society -- they have what other
countries want and could readily build a market economy in which all of
their citizens thrive. Look at what happened to all of the "aid" sent to
Yasser & Co, most of it wound up in mansions in the Riviera while the
people it wsa intended to help stayed poor, starving and ripe for
exploitation (couldn't have been by design, could it?). Oil for food? That
worked out well, didn't it.
>I hope I live to see the day when oil is no longer important. The middle
>east will make North Africa look like the land of plenty and the Islamists
>can go back to what they want to do.
>
>And no one will give a rat's ass.
>
>
><<snip>>
>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Goedjn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>surprise me to learn that with the thinking of the time, the fact was that
>>we had two nukes to drop and we were going to drop them both. As an
>>aside,
>
>
> IIRC, we had eight or so more, at the time.
The only info I find describes the Manhattan project as having produced
three atomic bombs. Two plutonium bombs (one tested at the Trinity site and
one dropped on Nagasaki) and a uranium bomb (dropped on Hiroshima). If
there is documentation of addition weapons available at the time, please
provide a link.
todd
As far as the oil goes we have our own reserves the inviromentallist are
keeping us oiut of it for now. If it came to it they would be ignored and
we would drill our own oil. My information comes directly from the science
channel so hey lol it could be wrong but I doubt it.
opinions are like A@#wholes everyone has one.
Al
"Hedley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Al Moran" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 04:14:26 GMT, "Hedley" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>The animals we are dealing with in the middle east are further up against
>>>the wall than pre-Revolutionary War Americans ever were. They are
>>>desperate, starving, uneducated, and totally without hope. And their
>>>leaders fill these starving ingorants with a perverted religious fervor
>>>to
>>>make them do stupid things.
>>
>> That's exactly why we should nuke their asses and get it over with.
>
> I wouldn't go that far. At least not right now. I've got two gas burning
> vehicles and I buy food that is delived by diesel truck that is grown
> using gas powered farm equipment. If you think about it, our entire world
> would collapse without a dependable source of oil.
>
> I'm just waiting on the price of oil to get high enough to make
> alternatives (Canadian Oil Sands) to the middle east more palatable. It's
> getting there. 70$ a barrel tops most of the cut-off points for making
> stuff like the Oils Sands in Canada a profitable enterprise. Right now,
> that place is hopping like Texas back in the early to mid 1900's.
>
> Would you pay 5$ a gallon for gas in the USA in order to watch the middle
> east dry up and return to a bunch of peaceful and poor nomadic tribes? Of
> course, we'd first have to suffer through a bout of the harshest desert
> starvation to dwindle their angry numbers and temper their attitude of
> religious superiority and intolerance. Our friends (Dubai, UAE) would be
> OK, I hope.
>
> THAT'S what I hope to live to see. I've only got another 30-40 years, and
> I sorely think I may miss it.
>
> More than likely, nations will get more desparate over their dependance
> and go into some kind of war. Economies will fail. Millions will die
> (maybe billions when you think of how far the Chinese and Indians have
> moved from an agragarian socoiety).
>
> America should be pretty safe as long as we annex Canada and make sure
> that southwestern fence is strong. We'll still suffer horribly, but
> should survive.
>
>
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> "Goedjn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>surprise me to learn that with the thinking of the time, the fact was that
> >>we had two nukes to drop and we were going to drop them both. As an
> >>aside,
> >
> >
> > IIRC, we had eight or so more, at the time.
>
> The only info I find describes the Manhattan project as having produced
> three atomic bombs. Two plutonium bombs (one tested at the Trinity site and
> one dropped on Nagasaki) and a uranium bomb (dropped on Hiroshima). If
> there is documentation of addition weapons available at the time, please
> provide a link.
Stuff I've read said that there were only those three until August
'45, but that one Pu bomb could be manufacturered every three weeks
(U235 was too difficult to separate hence the reason for the Pu
research in the first place). The Manhattan project wasn't just a
research program, rather manufacturing.
--
Keith
Well said.
Al
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:45:57 GMT, "John Emmons" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Like I said, they're fighting for their souls.
>>
>>They want to destroy Israel and the west, we want to destroy them.
>>Depending
>>on where you live, one side is right.
>
> OK, where do *you* live?
>
> Again, the above "moral equivalency" viewpoint just borders on the
> absurd. "we want to destroy them?" No, we want to prevent them from
> destroying us; our's is a "live and let live" philosophy, it's when others
> do impolite things like using airplanes as missiles to bring down
> skyscrapers or send their own children into other countries with bombs
> strapped to themselves to kill civlians that we tend to get a bit riled.
>
>>
>>The west wants the rest of the world to march in lock step with GW Bush's
>>idea of freedom and democracy, based on freeing up as many of the earth's
>>resources for use by the U.S. as possible while stopping others from
>>having
>>access to them.
>
> "It's all Bush's fault" I'm frankly growing somewhat tired of that silly
> old saw. IIRC, Bush wasn't in office when the World Trade Center was
> first
> bombed, nor when the USS Cole was attacked, nor when the Kobar towers came
> down. Dang! Those radicals were prescient, weren't they? ... and where
> in the world has anyone *ever* said that the US wants to prevent others
> from using earth's resources (except, of course for those in the US
> environmental movement who would just as soon have all of us living in mud
> huts and living as subsistence farmers while the bulk of the US was set
> aside as some western Serengeti)?
>
>>
>>The radical Islamists want a world that follows in lock step with their
>>religious beliefs.
>>
>>Nothing I've written contradicts any of that.
>>
>
> OK, so, which side are you on? You (or your descendants) don't get to be
> neutral in this. If the policies you advocate result in a radical
> Islamic
> middle-east, a radical Islamic Europe, and encroachment of radical Islam
> into the US and other western countries, you are going to have to take a
> stand -- neutrality will be counted by the radical Islamists as the
> equivalent of an infidel.
>
>>It's the context that seems to be lost, we in the west seem to feel that
>>we
>>have some sort of mandate to inflict our beliefs on others while
>>condemning
>>those who would do the same. The end result is the same, deaths of
>>innocent
>>people who want to be left alone to tend to their own.
>>
>
> You know, I just don't see that "inflict our beliefs on others" in
> western culture, at least not since the Inquisition was shown to be such a
> bad idea. Share our beliefs, yes --- inflict them, no, unless by that you
> mean by that stopping others from attacking and killing innocents in
> other
> countries is somehow inflicting our beliefs on others. or maybe you are
> espousing the opinion that killing innocent civilians is a bad thing is
> simply a cultural affectation of our own culture and we should not impose
> that on more blood-thirsty cultures who view inflicting such punishment on
> others as perfectly legitimate.
>
>
>>I say lets all stop trying to tell the other folks what to do and see what
>>happens, it's the only thing that hasn't been tried. Sooner or later, the
>>people are gonna decide to stop killing one another for politicians. Til
>>then, we're all complicit in this nonsense.
>>
>
> hmmm, seems that's been tried in the middle-east and other places
> numerous times. Hasn't generally worked out too well. That bit of
> nastiness that took place in the early 40's was a direct result of not
> trying to tell a certain couple of European dictators what to do. Seems
> that every time Israel has attempted to take a live and let live policy,
> even to the point of giving up land for peace, the land given up winds up
> being used to stage new attacks on Israel. Leaving Afghanastan alone with
> the Taliban, well, that didn't turn out too well either.
>
>>John E.
>>
>>"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
>>news:300720061713289174%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> John Emmons <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> > To the islamic militants of the world, it's a fight for what
>>> > they consider their souls, you don't have to agree with them to
>>understand
>>> > that.
>>>
>>> You're wrong. To them, it's a fight to take over the world and destroy
>>> other cultures and religions.
>>>
>>> They don't want to be left alone by Israel, they want to destroy Israel
>>> and kill every living Jew.
>>>
>>> They don't want to accomodate or be accomodated by the West, they want
>>> to destroy what we've built, our civilization, and replace it with what
>>> the Taliban accomplished in Afghanistan.
>>
>
>
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
>
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:45:57 GMT, "John Emmons" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Like I said, they're fighting for their souls.
>
>They want to destroy Israel and the west, we want to destroy them. Depending
>on where you live, one side is right.
OK, where do *you* live?
Again, the above "moral equivalency" viewpoint just borders on the
absurd. "we want to destroy them?" No, we want to prevent them from
destroying us; our's is a "live and let live" philosophy, it's when others
do impolite things like using airplanes as missiles to bring down
skyscrapers or send their own children into other countries with bombs
strapped to themselves to kill civlians that we tend to get a bit riled.
>
>The west wants the rest of the world to march in lock step with GW Bush's
>idea of freedom and democracy, based on freeing up as many of the earth's
>resources for use by the U.S. as possible while stopping others from having
>access to them.
"It's all Bush's fault" I'm frankly growing somewhat tired of that silly
old saw. IIRC, Bush wasn't in office when the World Trade Center was first
bombed, nor when the USS Cole was attacked, nor when the Kobar towers came
down. Dang! Those radicals were prescient, weren't they? ... and where
in the world has anyone *ever* said that the US wants to prevent others
from using earth's resources (except, of course for those in the US
environmental movement who would just as soon have all of us living in mud
huts and living as subsistence farmers while the bulk of the US was set
aside as some western Serengeti)?
>
>The radical Islamists want a world that follows in lock step with their
>religious beliefs.
>
>Nothing I've written contradicts any of that.
>
OK, so, which side are you on? You (or your descendants) don't get to be
neutral in this. If the policies you advocate result in a radical Islamic
middle-east, a radical Islamic Europe, and encroachment of radical Islam
into the US and other western countries, you are going to have to take a
stand -- neutrality will be counted by the radical Islamists as the
equivalent of an infidel.
>It's the context that seems to be lost, we in the west seem to feel that we
>have some sort of mandate to inflict our beliefs on others while condemning
>those who would do the same. The end result is the same, deaths of innocent
>people who want to be left alone to tend to their own.
>
You know, I just don't see that "inflict our beliefs on others" in
western culture, at least not since the Inquisition was shown to be such a
bad idea. Share our beliefs, yes --- inflict them, no, unless by that you
mean by that stopping others from attacking and killing innocents in other
countries is somehow inflicting our beliefs on others. or maybe you are
espousing the opinion that killing innocent civilians is a bad thing is
simply a cultural affectation of our own culture and we should not impose
that on more blood-thirsty cultures who view inflicting such punishment on
others as perfectly legitimate.
>I say lets all stop trying to tell the other folks what to do and see what
>happens, it's the only thing that hasn't been tried. Sooner or later, the
>people are gonna decide to stop killing one another for politicians. Til
>then, we're all complicit in this nonsense.
>
hmmm, seems that's been tried in the middle-east and other places
numerous times. Hasn't generally worked out too well. That bit of
nastiness that took place in the early 40's was a direct result of not
trying to tell a certain couple of European dictators what to do. Seems
that every time Israel has attempted to take a live and let live policy,
even to the point of giving up land for peace, the land given up winds up
being used to stage new attacks on Israel. Leaving Afghanastan alone with
the Taliban, well, that didn't turn out too well either.
>John E.
>
>"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
>news:300720061713289174%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> John Emmons <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > To the islamic militants of the world, it's a fight for what
>> > they consider their souls, you don't have to agree with them to
>understand
>> > that.
>>
>> You're wrong. To them, it's a fight to take over the world and destroy
>> other cultures and religions.
>>
>> They don't want to be left alone by Israel, they want to destroy Israel
>> and kill every living Jew.
>>
>> They don't want to accomodate or be accomodated by the West, they want
>> to destroy what we've built, our civilization, and replace it with what
>> the Taliban accomplished in Afghanistan.
>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
In article <[email protected]>,
Nick Hull <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Al Moran <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 04:14:26 GMT, "Hedley" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >The animals we are dealing with in the middle east are further up against
> > >the wall than pre-Revolutionary War Americans ever were. They are
> > >desperate, starving, uneducated, and totally without hope. And their
> > >leaders fill these starving ingorants with a perverted religious fervor to
> > >make them do stupid things.
> >
> > That's exactly why we should nuke their asses and get it over with.
>
> There would be more peace and more oil if we nukes Israel instead. We
> won't because they are nuclear themselves, so it teaches ALL other
> nations that they had better get a nuke soon to protect themselves. I
> predict massive nuclear proliferation in the near future.
And this differs from the rest of the last 60+ years how? Nuclear
proliferation prevention always has been a pipe dream no matter where or
who is in charge of the US or any other country.
Israel has only acted in self defense and does a real good job
of making nice-nice with those who merely say they won't try to wipe
them off the map. Egypt signed a peace treaty recognizing Israel's right
to exist, got all their land back and developed an important trading
partner.
Kurt (We'll try to remain serene and calm when Alabama gets a Bomb)
Ullman
"Al Moran" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 04:14:26 GMT, "Hedley" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>The animals we are dealing with in the middle east are further up against
>>the wall than pre-Revolutionary War Americans ever were. They are
>>desperate, starving, uneducated, and totally without hope. And their
>>leaders fill these starving ingorants with a perverted religious fervor to
>>make them do stupid things.
>
> That's exactly why we should nuke their asses and get it over with.
I wouldn't go that far. At least not right now. I've got two gas burning
vehicles and I buy food that is delived by diesel truck that is grown using
gas powered farm equipment. If you think about it, our entire world would
collapse without a dependable source of oil.
I'm just waiting on the price of oil to get high enough to make alternatives
(Canadian Oil Sands) to the middle east more palatable. It's getting there.
70$ a barrel tops most of the cut-off points for making stuff like the Oils
Sands in Canada a profitable enterprise. Right now, that place is hopping
like Texas back in the early to mid 1900's.
Would you pay 5$ a gallon for gas in the USA in order to watch the middle
east dry up and return to a bunch of peaceful and poor nomadic tribes? Of
course, we'd first have to suffer through a bout of the harshest desert
starvation to dwindle their angry numbers and temper their attitude of
religious superiority and intolerance. Our friends (Dubai, UAE) would be
OK, I hope.
THAT'S what I hope to live to see. I've only got another 30-40 years, and I
sorely think I may miss it.
More than likely, nations will get more desparate over their dependance and
go into some kind of war. Economies will fail. Millions will die (maybe
billions when you think of how far the Chinese and Indians have moved from
an agragarian socoiety).
America should be pretty safe as long as we annex Canada and make sure that
southwestern fence is strong. We'll still suffer horribly, but should
survive.
In article <[email protected]>,
Al Moran <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 04:14:26 GMT, "Hedley" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >The animals we are dealing with in the middle east are further up against
> >the wall than pre-Revolutionary War Americans ever were. They are
> >desperate, starving, uneducated, and totally without hope. And their
> >leaders fill these starving ingorants with a perverted religious fervor to
> >make them do stupid things.
>
> That's exactly why we should nuke their asses and get it over with.
There would be more peace and more oil if we nukes Israel instead. We
won't because they are nuclear themselves, so it teaches ALL other
nations that they had better get a nuke soon to protect themselves. I
predict massive nuclear proliferation in the near future.
--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 04:14:26 GMT, "Hedley" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>The animals we are dealing with in the middle east are further up against
>the wall than pre-Revolutionary War Americans ever were. They are
>desperate, starving, uneducated, and totally without hope. And their
>leaders fill these starving ingorants with a perverted religious fervor to
>make them do stupid things.
That's exactly why we should nuke their asses and get it over with.
Graham Walters wrote:
> I think you'll find that men, women and children were indiscriminately
> murdered. The history books here in the UK cover it quite well. Perhaps the
> history books in the USA decided not to cover that part of their history.
>
> Like who was the first president of the United States, we all know it was
> John Hanson (1781 - 1782), so why does The White House's web site list it as
> George Washington.
>
> So if The White House can't get a simple thing like that right, what chance
> is there that any other information available in the USA is correct!!!!
>
>
>
> Why is it always the same, as soon as someone starts to lose an argument on
> the internet they resort to name calling....
>
>
>
> Graham
I'd like to see your source for American patriots indiscriminantly
killing men, women and children during the Revolutionary War. Source
please?
In any war, there will always be some incidental loss of life, by
people caught in harms way. And there will always be a few rogue
soldiers, that rape, loot and pilage. That does not make those that
fought the Revolutinary War or those that founded this country
terrorists. By your convoluted standards, the British would be
terrorists too, for having gone to war against the Nazis.
And yes, anyone that says those American patriots were terrorists is
giving support to the real terrorrists today who are indiscriminantly
killing anyone by placing bombs in restaurants, shops, and mosques and
flying planes into buildings. They would murder us all if they had
their way. Is that the same thing as Washington leading troops against
the British? Didn't you learn anything when they blew up your London
subway? Or are you just a commie pinko bedwetter too?
Graham Walters wrote:
> > I'd like to see your source for American patriots indiscriminantly
> > killing men, women and children during the Revolutionary War. Source
> > please?
> >
> > In any war, there will always be some incidental loss of life, by
> > people caught in harms way. And there will always be a few rogue
> > soldiers, that rape, loot and pilage. That does not make those that
> > fought the Revolutinary War or those that founded this country
> > terrorists. By your convoluted standards, the British would be
> > terrorists too, for having gone to war against the Nazis.
> >
> > And yes, anyone that says those American patriots were terrorists is
> > giving support to the real terrorrists today who are indiscriminantly
> > killing anyone by placing bombs in restaurants, shops, and mosques and
> > flying planes into buildings. They would murder us all if they had
> > their way. Is that the same thing as Washington leading troops against
> > the British? Didn't you learn anything when they blew up your London
> > subway? Or are you just a commie pinko bedwetter too?
> >
>
> As I have previously said.
>
> >>what chance is there that any other information available in the USA is
> >>correct!!!!
This is typical faulty logic that just collapses under it's own lack of
foundation. Even if one accepts your premise that the White House is
a source of misinformation, what the hell does that have to do with all
other information in the USA being incorrect. It would be like me
saying Tony Blair is incompetent, therefore all the information
contained in 500 years of British history is bogus. And even if all
the information in the good old USA is bogus, it still does not follow
that your bizarre assertions correct and do not require any credible
shred of evidence.
But at least everyone can see how your convoluted mind works.
Amen!!!!!
It's time we took America back.
[email protected] wrote:
> My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the
> Orange County Register which, of course, was not printed. So I decided
> to "print" it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Please pass
> it along if you feel so inclined. Thank you.
>
> (signed) Dave LaBonte
>
> Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the Orange
> County Register:
>
>
> Dear Editor:
>
> So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this
> land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should
> tear down the Statute of Liberty because the people now in question
> aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island
> and other ports of entry.
>
> Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to
> people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept
> this new kind of immigrant any longer.
>
> Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to
> come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a
> long line in New York and be documented. S ome would even get down on
> their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to
> uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times.
> They made learning English a primary rule in their new American
> households and some even changed their names to blend in with their
> new home.
>
> They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their
> children a new life and did everything in their power to help their
> children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No
> free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had
> were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade
> for a future of prosperity. Most of their children came of age when
> World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents
> had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France and Japan. None of
> these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what
> country their parents had come from.
>
> They were Americans fighting Hilter, Mussolini and the Emperor
> of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one
> people. When we liberated France, no one in those villages was looking
> for the French-American or the German-American or the Irish-American.
> The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that
> represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have
> thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to
> represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their
> parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly
> knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot
> into one red, white and blue bowl.
>
> And here we are in 2006 with a new kind of immigrant who wants
> the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by
> playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the
> entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother
> country. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I
> believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early
> 1900s deserve better than that for the toil, hard work and sacrifice
> in raising future generations to create a land that has be-come a
> beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they
> would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those
> waving foreign country flags.
>
> And for that suggestion about taking down the Statute of
> Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on
> the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the
> United States just yet.
>
> (signed) Rosemary LaBonte
>
>
> P.S. Pass this on to everyone you know!!! KEEP THIS LETTER MOVING!! I
> hope this letter gets read by millions of people all across the
> nation!! ~~ r.p.
>
>
> "Learn as if you were going to live forever. Live as if you were going
> to die tomorrow." - Mahatma Gandhi
Amen!!!!!
It's time we took America back.
[email protected] wrote:
> My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the
> Orange County Register which, of course, was not printed. So I decided
> to "print" it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Please pass
> it along if you feel so inclined. Thank you.
>
> (signed) Dave LaBonte
>
> Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the Orange
> County Register:
>
>
> Dear Editor:
>
> So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this
> land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should
> tear down the Statute of Liberty because the people now in question
> aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island
> and other ports of entry.
>
> Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to
> people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept
> this new kind of immigrant any longer.
>
> Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to
> come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a
> long line in New York and be documented. S ome would even get down on
> their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to
> uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times.
> They made learning English a primary rule in their new American
> households and some even changed their names to blend in with their
> new home.
>
> They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their
> children a new life and did everything in their power to help their
> children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No
> free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had
> were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade
> for a future of prosperity. Most of their children came of age when
> World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents
> had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France and Japan. None of
> these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what
> country their parents had come from.
>
> They were Americans fighting Hilter, Mussolini and the Emperor
> of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one
> people. When we liberated France, no one in those villages was looking
> for the French-American or the German-American or the Irish-American.
> The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that
> represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have
> thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to
> represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their
> parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly
> knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot
> into one red, white and blue bowl.
>
> And here we are in 2006 with a new kind of immigrant who wants
> the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by
> playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the
> entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother
> country. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I
> believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early
> 1900s deserve better than that for the toil, hard work and sacrifice
> in raising future generations to create a land that has be-come a
> beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they
> would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those
> waving foreign country flags.
>
> And for that suggestion about taking down the Statute of
> Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on
> the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the
> United States just yet.
>
> (signed) Rosemary LaBonte
>
>
> P.S. Pass this on to everyone you know!!! KEEP THIS LETTER MOVING!! I
> hope this letter gets read by millions of people all across the
> nation!! ~~ r.p.
>
>
> "Learn as if you were going to live forever. Live as if you were going
> to die tomorrow." - Mahatma Gandhi
<snip>
> I'm not excusing their behaviour, simply trying to put it into context. If
> it were my family being bombed and shot at, I imagine I might hide behind a
> few skirts in order to try and fight back as best I could too. As would just
> about anyone I imagine.
>
> Is it really so hard to try and imagine what the other guy is thinking?
>
> John E.
>
> <snip>
Never would I think somebody here would put a statement like that into
print. That you would hide behind innocent women and children to
accomplish your needs is one of the worst statements I've heard in any
OT thread in this group. And to have the audacity to suggest anyone
else here would do it... shame on you.
-jtpr
[email protected] wrote:
> My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the
> Orange County Register which, of course, was not printed. So I decided
> to "print" it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Please pass
> it along if you feel so inclined. Thank you.
>
> (signed) Dave LaBonte
>
Please tell you wife Rosemary that posting chain letters like this
is contrary to your ISP's AUP.
--
FF
John Emmons wrote:
> Like I said, they're fighting for their souls.
>
> They want to destroy Israel and the west, we want to destroy them. Depending
> on where you live, one side is right.
You are an idiot. If there was any hope of helping you'd see the
light, I'd make a longer post, but I think its hopeless.
Graham Walters wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Like who was the first president of the United States, we all know it was
> John Hanson (1781 - 1782), so why does The White House's web site list it as
> George Washington.
John Hanson was the First President of the Continental
Congress of the United States of America. George Washington
was the First President of the Untied States of America.
The President of the Continental Congress had no executive
authority outside of that body. They was not at all the same office,
despite the similarity of title.
--
FF
Al wrote:
> No there is a comparison, Those are to illnesses that are terrible to deal
> with however if you play you might end up paying. So back in the world of
> News groups and internet where my comment was directed as to the subjects.
> Freedom of speech in this country is a right, steeling someone else's
> property is not acceptable in any country and in some cases the property
> owner will shoot the crook with my regards, I hate thief's. As someone that
> created a program to use at my last place of employment where as the owner
> tried to claim they owned my software solely created at my home on my time.
> This particular comment on my side hits very close to home, btw I have the
> only copies of my software goto love FDISK on a system with all your
> software on it! So free speech go for it, steeling forget it. It would
> make someone wonder where someone else's moral boundaries are. You can do
> what you want I know I have a clear conscious when it comes to this topic.
>
>
>
> Al
>
>
> Once again pinions are like A@#wholes everyone has one including me!
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Al wrote:
> >> Well if it against the AUP that's all good however something like this is
> >> more acceptable to me then the posting of copywriten and or pirated
> >> software
> >> that is seen so much on these things. Don't you agree?
> >>
> >
> > Chlamydia is better than gonorrhea, don't you agree?
> >
Ok, you don't agree that chlamydia is better than gonorrhea,
though I am not clear as to why not.
I am quite sure that you understood the analogy and my reason
for presenting it so I will address your comments regarding theft.
USENET is not public. NNTP traffic is carried over both private
and public servers, bu tmostly it is carried over private networks.
USENET is organized into newsgroups by topic. The purpose being
that when people read USENET they can chose the topic they
wish to read. People pay, directly or indirectly for USENET access
and reading UENET takes their time. Posting off topic is
Free Speech the same way that standing up in church to speak
on a topic of your chosing, woudl be free speech. My town
frequently hosts free public concerts in the town square. Once
a local character, starting speaking out during the concert. The
police arrived, and he quieted down. No arrest was made. But
plainly, even though he was speaking in a public place, his
right to free speech did not supercede the right of the rest of us
to quietly enjoy the scheduled activities.
Your right to speak freely on the internet is, to an extent,
superceded by my right to quietly enjoy the internet
access for which I paid. If you want to post a political rant,
fine, post it in a political rant newsgroup.
People who post off-topic, especially spammers like OP,
who spam USENET with ficticious political claptrap are
thieves. They steal the money and time of the USENET
readership. They only steal a little from each, but theft it
remains.
--
FF
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Graham Walters" <graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>, "Graham Walters"
> >> <graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>>I think you'll find that men, women and children were indiscriminately
> >>>murdered.
> >>
> >> Yes, indeed they were -- by *British* troops.
> >>
> >>>The history books here in the UK cover it quite well. Perhaps the
> >>>history books in the USA decided not to cover that part of their history.
> >>
> >> Our history books cover the atrocities committed by *your* side quite
> >> nicely,
> >> thank you very much -- but I'll bet yours don't.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
> >>
> >> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
> >
> >Oh dear, someone else that clearly doesn't know what they are talking about.
>
> That person would be... youself, I'm afraid.
> >
> >After extensive research by American historians, there is NO evidence of any
> >British troops committing acts of atrocity.
>
> Obviously your mind is already made up, and there's no sense confusing you
> with anything so mundane as actual facts.
He should also check the Brit record during the Boer war where Tommy
machine gunned civilians, and penned survivors so closely without
medical treatment or food or sanitation that thousands died. But, hey,
what the hell, those damned Boers wanted to keep their own company
instead of turning it over to businessmen for diamond mining and
similar purposes.
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Graham Walters" <graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>, "Graham Walters"
> >> <graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>>I think you'll find that men, women and children were indiscriminately
> >>>murdered.
> >>
> >> Yes, indeed they were -- by *British* troops.
> >>
> >>>The history books here in the UK cover it quite well. Perhaps the
> >>>history books in the USA decided not to cover that part of their history.
> >>
> >> Our history books cover the atrocities committed by *your* side quite
> >> nicely,
> >> thank you very much -- but I'll bet yours don't.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
> >>
> >> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
> >
> >Oh dear, someone else that clearly doesn't know what they are talking about.
>
> That person would be... youself, I'm afraid.
> >
> >After extensive research by American historians, there is NO evidence of any
> >British troops committing acts of atrocity.
>
> Obviously your mind is already made up, and there's no sense confusing you
> with anything so mundane as actual facts.
He should also check the Brit record during the Boer war where Tommy
machine gunned civilians, and penned survivors so closely without
medical treatment or food or sanitation that thousands died. But, hey,
what the hell, those damned Boers wanted to keep their own country
instead of turning it over to businessmen for diamond mining and
similar purposes.
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Graham Walters" <graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>, "Graham Walters"
> >> <graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>>I think you'll find that men, women and children were indiscriminately
> >>>murdered.
> >>
> >> Yes, indeed they were -- by *British* troops.
> >>
> >>>The history books here in the UK cover it quite well. Perhaps the
> >>>history books in the USA decided not to cover that part of their history.
> >>
> >> Our history books cover the atrocities committed by *your* side quite
> >> nicely,
> >> thank you very much -- but I'll bet yours don't.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
> >>
> >> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
> >
> >Oh dear, someone else that clearly doesn't know what they are talking about.
>
> That person would be... youself, I'm afraid.
> >
> >After extensive research by American historians, there is NO evidence of any
> >British troops committing acts of atrocity.
>
> Obviously your mind is already made up, and there's no sense confusing you
> with anything so mundane as actual facts.
He should also check the Brit record during the Boer war where Tommy
machine gunned civilians, and penned survivors so closely without
medical treatment or food or sanitation that thousands died. But, hey,
what the hell, those damned Boers wanted to keep their own country
instead of turning it over to businessmen for diamond mining and
similar purposes.
This is off-topic for rec.woodworking and alt.home.repair so I've
set followups accrdingly. Or if you prefer, we can take this to email.
Al wrote:
> No one lied.
>
It appears that you lied when you wrote:
"So basically you stating that one must obey the AUP but its ok to
steal!..."
But, since it also appears that English is not your first language
perhaps you did not understand the article. I suggest you review it.
There are few things as offensive as lying about what someone
has said. I hope you were merely mistaken.
--
FF
This is off-topic for rec.woodworking and alt.home.repair so I've set
followups accordingly.
Al wrote:
> "LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 17:21:44 GMT, "Al" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > A: Why did you find it necessary to post this to rec.woodworking?
>
>
> A. Is this the good ole boy club? Because it is inline with the topic. I
> just changed the name. Like I said to him this one is done and I am through
> with this topic.
>
>
>
> >>...I do block people who post things that are copywritten...
> >
> > 2: It's "copyrighted", not 'copywritten'. That's because it's
> > "copyright", not "copywrite".
>
>
> Thank you for the spell check that my software over looked but never the
> less you understood what I was saying. Not looking to lock horns over this
> with anyone as anyone else in here it was with this particular topic and I
> as well as you am aloud my opinion. So why are you singling me out? I am a
> honest man and stand by it I can't help it others are not.
>
Now that we have established the proper spelling, would you not
consider that absent Rosemary LaBonte's permisson,
nospambob(atsign)vcoms.net has infringed her copyright
by posting her letter?
Assuming of course, that the introductory story was true which
is unlikely since as we all know, spammers lie.
--
FF
Graham Walters wrote:
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Graham Walters"
> > <graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > ....
> >
> > Our history books cover the atrocities committed by *your* side quite
> > nicely, thank you very much -- but I'll bet yours don't.
How do they cover the "Black Hole of Calcutta" these days?
> ...
> Oh dear, someone else that clearly doesn't know what they are talking about.
>
> After extensive research by American historians, there is NO evidence of any
> British troops committing acts of atrocity.
You mean in the American Colonies, right? Tie any Mamalukes
to cannon lately?
The last I hear you had given up keel-hauling, and whipping
around the fleet as well. Good.
--
FF
[email protected] wrote:
> During the revolutionary war American patriots did not indiscriminant=
ly
> kill innocent men, women and children.=A0=A0And=A0if=A0that=A0is=A0wh=
at=A0SC
> Educational radio is claiming, then they are a bunch of commie pinko
> bedwetters, like you.
Now you've gone from reasoning to invective. Shame. No, the founding =
fathers
were not terrorists. Yes, there were instances of "terrorist" mobs
assaulting citizens who disagreed with them - on both sides. It has be=
en
pointed out by historians that the only reason the American revolution =
did
not have a "reign of terror" like the French, British, and Russian
revolutions was that our population was too small and too dispersed to
support the kind of mass hysteria required.
I agree with you, and the original poster, on the immigration issue. O=
ne
point, however, was left out. When the earlier waves of immigration ar=
rived,
we were underpopulated. Now we're overpopulated.
--=20
It's turtles, all the way down
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> During the revolutionary war American patriots did not indiscriminantly
>> kill innocent men, women and children. And if that is what SC
>> Educational radio is claiming, then they are a bunch of commie pinko
>> bedwetters, like you.
>
> Now you've gone from reasoning to invective. Shame. No, the founding
> fathers
> were not terrorists. Yes, there were instances of "terrorist" mobs
> assaulting citizens who disagreed with them - on both sides. It has been
> pointed out by historians that the only reason the American revolution did
> not have a "reign of terror" like the French, British, and Russian
> revolutions was that our population was too small and too dispersed to
> support the kind of mass hysteria required.
>
> I agree with you, and the original poster, on the immigration issue. One
> point, however, was left out. When the earlier waves of immigration
> arrived,
> we were underpopulated. Now we're overpopulated.
>
>
You are all wrong:
http://www.coyotescorner.com/tshirts-hs2.htm
Graham Walters wrote:
>
> Oh dear, someone else that clearly doesn't know what they are talking
> about.
> After extensive research by American historians, there is NO evidence
> of any British troops committing acts of atrocity.
>
> If you want to know about history, ask a historian not Hollywood...
I saw the movie "The Patriot" with Mel Gibson. Based on historical accounts
it was.
Some of the British were just plain impolite, killing American wounded and
so forth. Shame on them.
Still, we must give each its due. There was a time, not so very long ago,
when every tolling of the hour by Big Ben meant that, somewhere in the
world, the British Ensign was being raised at dawn.
Now, with every tick of the atomic clock at the National Bureau of
Standards, Microsoft Windows is booting up a computer (some for the eighth
time that day).
jerry wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>
>> I agree with you, and the original poster, on the immigration issue. One
>> point, however, was left out. When the earlier waves of immigration
>> arrived,
>> we were underpopulated. Now we're overpopulated.
>>
>>
> You are all wrong:
> http://www.coyotescorner.com/tshirts-hs2.htm
If the point of your directing me to a site for t-shirts was to imply that the
continent was fully populated before the Europeans arrived, you're the one
who's wrong. A few million (if that many) inhabitants does not constitute
overpopulation.
But the site did have some neat t-shirts. If you're one of the owners, you're
spamming :-).
--
It's turtles, all the way down
In article <[email protected]>,
John Emmons <[email protected]> wrote:
> Seems more than just a bit hypocritical for citizens of a nation who
> committed what was then considered treason to condemn the actions of others
> in seeking their own freedoms,
Your'e not seriously suggesting that because someone committed a
horrendous act sometime in the past people living today are not
entitled to condemn horrendous acts, are you?
> while the deliberate targeting of civilians
> is reprehensible, lets not forget that one of the former Prime Ministers of
> Israel was a terrorist according to modern definitions. If Hezbollah and
> Hamas are terrorists and killers, and there's little doubt that they are,
> what does it say about their enemies when they kill innocent people to
> pursue the bad guys? It's only collateral damage when it's someone else's
> family I suppose.
Hezbollah deliberately uses civilians as shields for their missile
launches. They wear civilian clothing. They violate recognized
international rules of warfare.
Israel does not. Israel warns civilians abot impending attacks, to the
point of phoning people in Gaza to tell them to get out of the
building.
The civilian deaths in Lebanon are a direct result of how Hezbollah
behaves.
In article <[email protected]>,
John Emmons <[email protected]> wrote:
> To the islamic militants of the world, it's a fight for what
> they consider their souls, you don't have to agree with them to understand
> that.
You're wrong. To them, it's a fight to take over the world and destroy
other cultures and religions.
They don't want to be left alone by Israel, they want to destroy Israel
and kill every living Jew.
They don't want to accomodate or be accomodated by the West, they want
to destroy what we've built, our civilization, and replace it with what
the Taliban accomplished in Afghanistan.
"Graham Walters" <graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Graham Walters" <graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> I think you'll find that men, women and children were indiscriminately
>>> murdered. The history books here in the UK cover it quite well. Perhaps
>>> the history books in the USA decided not to cover that part of their
>>> history.
>>>
>>> Like who was the first president of the United States, we all know it
>>> was John Hanson (1781 - 1782), so why does The White House's web site
>>> list it as George Washington.
>>
>> Apparently, you're not as smart as you think.
>> http://www.snopes.com/history/american/hanson.htm
>>
>>> So if The White House can't get a simple thing like that right, what
>>> chance is there that any other information available in the USA is
>>> correct!!!!
>>
>> Ah, the irony.
>>
>> todd
>
> Sorry my mistake, I was referring from memory.
>
> John Hanson was the 3rd President of the United States, Samuel Huntington
> was the first, followed by Thomas McKean.
>
> If you want to know about history, ask a historian.
Apparently, your only problem isn't your memory. Since there was no "United
States of America" until the ratification of the US Constitution in 1789, it
would be difficult for Hanson (who died in 1783) to have been president of
it. Perhaps you're confusing the alliance of the thirteen states formed
under the Articles of Confederation with the United States of America. I
suggest you get your history straight.
todd
"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The fact is, they were military targets. They were also, obviously,
>> large
>> population centers as well. The stated purpose of using the atomic bombs
>> was to hasten an end to the war and avoid the losses on both sides that
>> would have come with a presumed invasion of the Japanese main island.
>> There's no way of knowing what would have actually taken place had the
>> atomic bombs not been dropped.
>
> You don't accept any of the arguments that we were showing our might to
> Stalin? Japan would have starved itself in short order without an
> invasion - an island nation with little natural resources for making war
> materials. They were running out of time once the allies recaptured most
> of the South Pacific, cut off major supply lines and knocking at their
> door.
My point is that I don't know what would have happened. Maybe a million
people would have starved to death if we just blockaded the island. Would
that have been better?
> Perhaps one can justify and accept the circumstances leading up to the
> first bomb dropped on Hiroshima. However, do we have as much standing to
> defend the second? Given that much of the communications infrastructure
> of Japan was in tatters, plus lacking modern methods of email, cell
> phones, satellites, etc - waiting merely 3 days before dropping on
> Nagasaki may have been rushed, unjustified and more illustrative of
> sending the Russians a message. They certainly were not our favorite
> allies and much distrusted. What if we had waited a full week? Did the
> Japanese submit a formal declaration that they intended to fight on no
> matter what we had done to Hiroshima?
Again, neither of us knows what would have happened had we waited a week. A
lot of people would say that the Japanese started the "hot" war with us, and
we finished it in the manner of our choosing. The fact that we had been
engaged in a bloody war with Japan for well over 3 years probably didn't
leave a lot good will toward the enemy at the time. It wouldn't even
surprise me to learn that with the thinking of the time, the fact was that
we had two nukes to drop and we were going to drop them both. As an aside,
Kyoto was the choice of many as the primary target for the first bomb. The
fact that Secretary of War Henry Stimson had spent his honeymoon there some
time before and had an appreciation for the city is probably the only thing
that saved it.
todd
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:00:44 +0100, "Graham Walters"
<graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> During the revolutionary war American patriots did not indiscriminantly
>> kill innocent men, women and children. And if that is what SC
>> Educational radio is claiming, then they are a bunch of commie pinko
>> bedwetters, like you.
Okay, Senator McCarthy- I thought that old invective went out quite a
while ago. It was a war, people got killed- many of them for nothing
more than refusing to go along with the revolutionaries. I don't see
that acknowledging the existance of collateral damage has anything to
do with communism. If anything, following the party line by closing
one's eyes and ears and humming propoganda is the communist ethic- not
the skepticism that is the bedrock of any society that intends to
remain free. If we whitewash the founders and put their sepia-toned
portraits on our walls with the idea that they were infallable
supermen, we simply prepare ourselves to be made into tools of any
criminal with the ability to spout chapter and verse at us. Always
question everything- and stop listening to that retarded jingoist
country music, for god's sake. It's embarassing, especially when our
current government seems dead set on turning the entire planet into an
endless procession of smoking ruins alternating with strip malls and
oil wells.
>
>I think you'll find that men, women and children were indiscriminately
>murdered. The history books here in the UK cover it quite well. Perhaps the
>history books in the USA decided not to cover that part of their history.
They do- but not in third grade social studies. I'd imagine things
are pretty much the same everywhere, people hear what they are
interested in, and tune out the rest.
>Like who was the first president of the United States, we all know it was
>John Hanson (1781 - 1782), so why does The White House's web site list it as
>George Washington.
>
>So if The White House can't get a simple thing like that right, what chance
>is there that any other information available in the USA is correct!!!!
Well, I won't argue that we're getting premium straight information in
the US, but it would stand to reason in my mind that the first US
president was G. Washington, for the same reason that our primary
legal document is the US Constitution, and not the Magna Carta.
Whomever controlled the US under the Articles of Confederation is
largely irrelevent, as they were drafted as a temporary form of
government that was discarded in favor of the Constitution. When the
Articles were replaced by the Constitution, it was a radical enough
change to argue that the modern US began as a country when the
Constitution was ratified- where it had simply been a loose alliance
of rebellious colonies before that time.
While it's always interesting to know how things got to be the way
they are today, that does not make obscure historical claims a basis
for denying the validity of the longest lived government on the face
of the planet. You may as well demand that the US be returned to
England because with the advent of modern telecommunications, the
founders' argument that the colonies existed in a "state of nature"
due to the extreme lengths of time required for communication with the
ruling government is no longer valid, and it's time to toss the whole
deal in the trash and come back into mother England's fold.
There are thousands of books published in the US about the founding
fathers, and most of them do not sugar coat the events surrounding the
revolution- believe it or not, our press is still free enough to point
out the embarassing personality flaws and outright hypocracy of many
of those grand old patriarchs, as well as go into horrendously minute
detail about every signifigant event of every meeting and public
action during that time period. They took good records, and all that
information is still floating around- but not one that I have
encountered (and I've read a lot of them) has the poor sense to claim
that the elected representatives under the Articles of Confederation
were members of the modern US government. Go ahead and believe what
you like, but it was not the same country under those two wildly
different sets of rules. It's even arguable that the US is not the
same country is was prior to the Civil war, when so many things
changed that the old system hardly resembles the current one.
Anyway- I'm done now. By all means, hash it around a bit- but you're
falling into an obscure side road that dead-ended over 200 years ago.
Hardly the basis for a sensible discussion about anything except that
one short period of time. Now if you want to bash the US propoganda
machine, there are any number of more contemporary examples around-
including the "commie pinko bedwetter" nonsense that was at the head
of this post. (Yes, I am aware that you were not the one who posted
that, but I deleted the header on that bit by accident)
[email protected] wrote:
<snip>
Save your breath and your flames.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/newimmigrants.asp
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 06:23:09 GMT, "Al" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 17:21:44 GMT, "Al" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> A: Why did you find it necessary to post this to rec.woodworking?
>
>
>A. Is this the good ole boy club? Because it is inline with the topic. I
>just changed the name. Like I said to him this one is done and I am through
>with this topic.
>
>
>
>>>...I do block people who post things that are copywritten...
>>
>> 2: It's "copyrighted", not 'copywritten'. That's because it's
>> "copyright", not "copywrite".
>
>
>Thank you for the spell check that my software over looked
"copywritten" is a word, just not THAT word. A spell checker won't
help when you use the wrong word.
> but never the
>less you understood what I was saying. Not looking to lock horns over this
>with anyone as anyone else in here it was with this particular topic and I
>as well as you am aloud my opinion. So why are you singling me out? I am a
>honest man and stand by it I can't help it others are not.
>
>
>
>>
>> --
>> LRod
>>
>> Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
>>
>> Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
>>
>> http://www.woodbutcher.net
>>
>> Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
>>
>> email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
>> If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
>> care to correspond with you anyway.
>
>
>
>So you have a nice day,
>
>
>
>Al
>
>Once again opinions are like A@#wholes everyone has one, including me!
>
I wasn't "suggesting" anything, I was making an observation about hypocrisy.
Something the the entire world needs to better examine. Like the hypocrisy
of a nation built on immigration trying to blame immigrants for all the
problems in society.
As for condemning horrendous acts, I'm all for it, let's all condemn all
horrendous acts, those committed by our enemies and those committed by our
allies.
I think you'll find that if you look at things objectively that pretty much
every nation has from time to time committed some pretty atrocious acts
against fellow humans, the U.S. isn't immune, nor are other so called
civilised nations.
All I'm saying is that nobody's hands are clean. Sure some are dirtier than
others, that's not really the point is it? Does it make you feel better if
you can say that you committed fewer atrocities than did your enemy?
Claiming the moral high ground when you aid and abet the killing of innocent
civilians is a pretty tough act to try and pull off. That applies to all
sides of all conflicts. And the sooner we realise that, the sooner the world
might just be better off. Unless everyone is happy living a life of denial
and rationalisation.
Which seems to be the case, sadly enough.
As for using civilians, what would you have them do? While not excusing
their atrocious behaviour, they're outnumbered, outgunned, etc. They fight
the people that they consider their enemies the only way they can, seems to
me that there were some people here in what's known as the U.S. who wore
civilian clothes, hid behind trees and walls to shoot down their enemies
too. They did what they did to whom they did the only way they knew how.
It's all wrong. To the islamic militants of the world, it's a fight for what
they consider their souls, you don't have to agree with them to understand
that.
John E.
"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:300720061306531496%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> John Emmons <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Seems more than just a bit hypocritical for citizens of a nation who
> > committed what was then considered treason to condemn the actions of
others
> > in seeking their own freedoms,
>
> Your'e not seriously suggesting that because someone committed a
> horrendous act sometime in the past people living today are not
> entitled to condemn horrendous acts, are you?
>
> > while the deliberate targeting of civilians
> > is reprehensible, lets not forget that one of the former Prime Ministers
of
> > Israel was a terrorist according to modern definitions. If Hezbollah and
> > Hamas are terrorists and killers, and there's little doubt that they
are,
> > what does it say about their enemies when they kill innocent people to
> > pursue the bad guys? It's only collateral damage when it's someone
else's
> > family I suppose.
>
> Hezbollah deliberately uses civilians as shields for their missile
> launches. They wear civilian clothing. They violate recognized
> international rules of warfare.
>
> Israel does not. Israel warns civilians abot impending attacks, to the
> point of phoning people in Gaza to tell them to get out of the
> building.
>
> The civilian deaths in Lebanon are a direct result of how Hezbollah
> behaves.
Seems odd that you do not mention th deliberate terrorism by commissioned
officers in His Majesty's Army, carried out as a deliberate policy of the
North administration.
--Banastre Tarleton, anyone?
Of course, that was merely a cntinuation of a century long poicy f the
Crown to use terrorism, and even germ warfare, on any opponnts of Crown
policy.
--- Lord Jeffrey Amherst, anyone?
--
Jim McLaughlin
Reply address is deliberately munged.
If you really need to reply directly, try:
jimdotmclaughlinatcomcastdotcom
And you know it is a dotnet not a dotcom
address.
"Graham Walters" <graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >> > Han wrote:
> >> > > [email protected] wrote in
> >> > > news:[email protected]:
> >> > >
> >> > > <a whole lot of nonsense>
> >> > >
> >> > > Here is my "nonsense":
> >> > >
> >> > > The Boston Teaparty and the Revolutionary War were conducted by a
> >> > > bunch of
> >> > > terrorists against the established lawfull government. Many people
> >> > > immigrated to the US under false pretenses (WWII war criminals,
> >> > > mafiosi,
> >> > > etc).
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Sorry Han. The founding fathers were not terrorists. They didn't
> >> > seek to indiscriminantly kill innocent men, women and children.
> >> > Unlike terrorists, they didn't plant bombs in shops, churchs, or town
> >> > centers to kill anyone, because they had moral values and common
> >> > decency still shared by the vast majority of Americans today. They
> >> > valued human life and only attacked legitimate targets of the British
> >> > colonial govt. Last time I checked, the Boston Teaparty you cited
> >> > consisted of throwing tea in the harbor, not deliberately killing
> >> > innocent civilians to create terror. To compare them to true
> >> > terrorists is offensive and can only give aid and comfort to an enemy
> >> > that is out to destroy us all.
> >> >
> >> > As for the OP's wife's letter, it sounds spot on to me. I hope she
> >> > sends it to other papers so that it will get published.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > Like the import of illegal drugs, import of illegal workers is (in
> >> > > large
> >> > > part) organized by home town demand. Who is doing the day labor in
> >> > > your
> >> > > town, local high school and college graduates?
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Best regards
> >> > > Han
> >> > > email address is invalid
> >>
> >> Your argument is as invalid as your email address.
> >>
> >> There were lots of burning down of buildings and shootings and
> >> lynchings of folks on the wrong side of the argument. This is discussed
> >> weekly on South Carolina Educational radio with great relish.
> >> TB
> >
> >
> > During the revolutionary war American patriots did not indiscriminantly
> > kill innocent men, women and children. And if that is what SC
> > Educational radio is claiming, then they are a bunch of commie pinko
> > bedwetters, like you.
> >
>
> I think you'll find that men, women and children were indiscriminately
> murdered. The history books here in the UK cover it quite well. Perhaps
the
> history books in the USA decided not to cover that part of their history.
>
> Like who was the first president of the United States, we all know it was
> John Hanson (1781 - 1782), so why does The White House's web site list it
as
> George Washington.
>
> So if The White House can't get a simple thing like that right, what
chance
> is there that any other information available in the USA is correct!!!!
>
>
>
> Why is it always the same, as soon as someone starts to lose an argument
on
> the internet they resort to name calling....
>
>
>
> Graham
>
>
No one lied.
Al
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Al wrote:
>> So basically you stating that one must obey the AUP but its ok to
>> steal!...
>
> No, nor did I say it was OK to lie about what I wrote.
>
> --
>
> FF
>
Immigrants and immigration are becoming THE political item in the U.S. With
little to no research or data to support their claims, anti-immigration
zealots are trying desperately to control the issue, in order to win votes
come November.
It's a lot like "gay marriage" or abortion rights, another effort to drum up
the voters and try to get them to the polls, hoping that they'll elect
another crop of neo-conservatives.
Obviously the entire nation isn't bashing immigrants, only those with an
agenda. As for them being idiots, that's your word, not mine.
As for those in hiding, of course you'd like to them to be out and in the
open, they're easier to kill that way. Don't be naive, they hide the way
that they do in order to win. They're fighting for their very way of life,
frankly, anyone who's surprised or shocked at the efforts that insurgents
undertake to try and survive is at best naive, at worst, they might be
related to those idiots you wrote about above.
I'm not excusing their behaviour, simply trying to put it into context. If
it were my family being bombed and shot at, I imagine I might hide behind a
few skirts in order to try and fight back as best I could too. As would just
about anyone I imagine.
Is it really so hard to try and imagine what the other guy is thinking?
John E.
"Kurt Ullman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-C054AD.18535330072006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx
...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "John Emmons" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I wasn't "suggesting" anything, I was making an observation about
hypocrisy.
> > Something the the entire world needs to better examine. Like the
hypocrisy
> > of a nation built on immigration trying to blame immigrants for all the
> > problems in society.
>
> Of course that isn't what is happening. Nobody (okay few but the
> congenital idiots) are saying anything about those who are here legally
> and following the law. Also no talk about lessening quotas that let more
> people in than any other country.
>
>
> > As for using civilians, what would you have them do? While not excusing
> > their atrocious behaviour, they're outnumbered, outgunned, etc. They
fight
> > the people that they consider their enemies the only way they can, seems
to
> > me that there were some people here in what's known as the U.S. who wore
> > civilian clothes, hid behind trees and walls to shoot down their
enemies
> > too. They did what they did to whom they did the only way they knew how.
> > It's all wrong. To the islamic militants of the world, it's a fight for
what
> > they consider their souls, you don't have to agree with them to
understand
> > that.
> >
> I would have them not hide behind the skirts of women, children
> and non-combatant men.
"Graham Walters" <graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I think you'll find that men, women and children were indiscriminately
> murdered. The history books here in the UK cover it quite well. Perhaps
> the history books in the USA decided not to cover that part of their
> history.
>
> Like who was the first president of the United States, we all know it was
> John Hanson (1781 - 1782), so why does The White House's web site list it
> as George Washington.
Apparently, you're not as smart as you think.
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/hanson.htm
> So if The White House can't get a simple thing like that right, what
> chance is there that any other information available in the USA is
> correct!!!!
Ah, the irony.
todd
So basically you stating that one must obey the AUP but its ok to steal!...
Your awesome keep up the good work! As far as stealing your money or time
that's BS and you know it. Do you have filters? Then filter anyone or
thing you want. I do block people who post things that are copywritten or
vulgar as I don't want my grand kids to see them. I see you are not against
criminal acts just freedom of speech. What a guy! I am glad to have met
someone of your caliber it has made such an impact on our lives. As far as
posting in the proper ng hmmm rec.woodworking,alt.home.repair I just don't
see anything about allowing electronic piracy here. As for stating the
obvious you are definitely in one minds set and not willing to see that yet
they both may be posted in the wrong group speech and electronic piracy are
two different things. One is legal and a freedom we value the other is a
criminal offence and is punishable in most countries, whether they enforce
it to a great extent who knows. Obviously the right to steal is more
important to some then the right to freedom of speech.
No need to respond I am done with this childish rant. I know where I stand
being the more adult here I will stop because it's going no where. Some
people are just meant to be criminals I guess. lol to quote a man of
logic, "Live long and prosper".
adios amigo
John Emmons wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> I'm not excusing their behaviour, simply trying to put it into context. If
> it were my family being bombed and shot at, I imagine I might hide behind a
> few skirts in order to try and fight back as best I could too. As would just
> about anyone I imagine.
>
Yes, I do believe, for some reason that you would indeed hide behind
women and children to protect your self.
Glen
"John Emmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Immigrants and immigration are becoming THE political item in the U.S.
> With
> little to no research or data to support their claims, anti-immigration
> zealots are trying desperately to control the issue, in order to win votes
> come November.
>
I have no problem with immigrants however if they enter a country illegally
then I have a problem with them. In this country or yours for that matter
they are criminals if they break the law of the land. It's not anti
immigration we welcome them to come legally that means come here and go
through the process like many of our four fathers did. I would not move to
Mexico and expect them to speak English for me I would learn Spanish. That
is not what they expect of us the want us to speak Spanish for them and
change our ways. My daughter was turned down for a job at AutoZone because
she could not speak Spanish a foreign language. One little thing but I look
at it as a respect issue as well as for AutoZone they lost a customer. No
big deal to them I am sure but to expect an American citizen born raised and
who did graduate from our schools system with high marks to have to change
our language to make it easier for the illegal that crap.
> It's a lot like "gay marriage" or abortion rights, another effort to drum
> up
> the voters and try to get them to the polls, hoping that they'll elect
> another crop of neo-conservatives.
>
> Obviously the entire nation isn't bashing immigrants, only those with an
> agenda. As for them being idiots, that's your word, not mine.
Your right none are bashing legal immigration at least that I see.
>
> As for those in hiding, of course you'd like to them to be out and in the
> open, they're easier to kill that way. Don't be naive, they hide the way
> that they do in order to win. They're fighting for their very way of life,
> frankly, anyone who's surprised or shocked at the efforts that insurgents
> undertake to try and survive is at best naive, at worst, they might be
> related to those idiots you wrote about above.
>
> I'm not excusing their behaviour, simply trying to put it into context. If
> it were my family being bombed and shot at, I imagine I might hide behind
> a
> few skirts in order to try and fight back as best I could too. As would
> just
> about anyone I imagine.
>
> Is it really so hard to try and imagine what the other guy is thinking?
>
> John E.
>
>
Well know that I have spoke my peace launch the attack! lol
Al
Opinions are like A#@wholes everyone has one.
>
> "Kurt Ullman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:kurtullman-C054AD.18535330072006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx
> ...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "John Emmons" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > I wasn't "suggesting" anything, I was making an observation about
> hypocrisy.
>> > Something the the entire world needs to better examine. Like the
> hypocrisy
>> > of a nation built on immigration trying to blame immigrants for all the
>> > problems in society.
>>
>> Of course that isn't what is happening. Nobody (okay few but the
>> congenital idiots) are saying anything about those who are here legally
>> and following the law. Also no talk about lessening quotas that let more
>> people in than any other country.
>>
>>
>> > As for using civilians, what would you have them do? While not excusing
>> > their atrocious behaviour, they're outnumbered, outgunned, etc. They
> fight
>> > the people that they consider their enemies the only way they can,
>> > seems
> to
>> > me that there were some people here in what's known as the U.S. who
>> > wore
>> > civilian clothes, hid behind trees and walls to shoot down their
> enemies
>> > too. They did what they did to whom they did the only way they knew
>> > how.
>> > It's all wrong. To the islamic militants of the world, it's a fight for
> what
>> > they consider their souls, you don't have to agree with them to
> understand
>> > that.
>> >
>> I would have them not hide behind the skirts of women, children
>> and non-combatant men.
>
>
There's nothing quite so amusing as a zealot who can't bring themselves to
even consider that there might be another way of seeing the world other than
thru their own, myopic lenses.
I see "the light" quite fine thanks, if only those of you who think you've
got all the answers did as well. I fear instead that you've been blinded by
it.
When the situation is hopeless, there's really nothing to worry about.
John E.
"bf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> John Emmons wrote:
> > Like I said, they're fighting for their souls.
> >
> > They want to destroy Israel and the west, we want to destroy them.
Depending
> > on where you live, one side is right.
>
> You are an idiot. If there was any hope of helping you'd see the
> light, I'd make a longer post, but I think its hopeless.
>
Like I said, they're fighting for their souls.
They want to destroy Israel and the west, we want to destroy them. Depending
on where you live, one side is right.
The west wants the rest of the world to march in lock step with GW Bush's
idea of freedom and democracy, based on freeing up as many of the earth's
resources for use by the U.S. as possible while stopping others from having
access to them.
The radical Islamists want a world that follows in lock step with their
religious beliefs.
Nothing I've written contradicts any of that.
It's the context that seems to be lost, we in the west seem to feel that we
have some sort of mandate to inflict our beliefs on others while condemning
those who would do the same. The end result is the same, deaths of innocent
people who want to be left alone to tend to their own.
I say lets all stop trying to tell the other folks what to do and see what
happens, it's the only thing that hasn't been tried. Sooner or later, the
people are gonna decide to stop killing one another for politicians. Til
then, we're all complicit in this nonsense.
John E.
"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:300720061713289174%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> John Emmons <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > To the islamic militants of the world, it's a fight for what
> > they consider their souls, you don't have to agree with them to
understand
> > that.
>
> You're wrong. To them, it's a fight to take over the world and destroy
> other cultures and religions.
>
> They don't want to be left alone by Israel, they want to destroy Israel
> and kill every living Jew.
>
> They don't want to accomodate or be accomodated by the West, they want
> to destroy what we've built, our civilization, and replace it with what
> the Taliban accomplished in Afghanistan.
[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:
<a whole lot of nonsense>
Here is my "nonsense":
The Boston Teaparty and the Revolutionary War were conducted by a bunch of
terrorists against the established lawfull government. Many people
immigrated to the US under false pretenses (WWII war criminals, mafiosi,
etc).
Like the import of illegal drugs, import of illegal workers is (in large
part) organized by home town demand. Who is doing the day labor in your
town, local high school and college graduates?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"MB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What do people think about the US dropping atom bombs on two japanese
> cities? These weren't military targets. Was that terrorism?
The fact is, they were military targets. They were also, obviously, large
population centers as well. The stated purpose of using the atomic bombs
was to hasten an end to the war and avoid the losses on both sides that
would have come with a presumed invasion of the Japanese main island.
There's no way of knowing what would have actually taken place had the
atomic bombs not been dropped.
And let's not delude ourselves into thinking that these were the only times
that cities were targeted in war. According to Wikipedia, the total
civilian deaths during WWII exceeeded 32 million.
todd
sniff.... sniff.... do I smell a Troll?
"Graham Walters" <graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Graham Walters wrote:
>>
>>> I think you'll find that men, women and children were indiscriminately
>>> murdered. The history books here in the UK cover it quite well. Perhaps
>>> the
>>> history books in the USA decided not to cover that part of their
>>> history.
>>>
>>> Like who was the first president of the United States, we all know it
>>> was
>>> John Hanson (1781 - 1782), so why does The White House's web site list
>>> it as
>>> George Washington.
>>>
>>> So if The White House can't get a simple thing like that right, what
>>> chance
>>> is there that any other information available in the USA is correct!!!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why is it always the same, as soon as someone starts to lose an argument
>>> on
>>> the internet they resort to name calling....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Graham
>>
>>
>> I'd like to see your source for American patriots indiscriminantly
>> killing men, women and children during the Revolutionary War. Source
>> please?
>>
>> In any war, there will always be some incidental loss of life, by
>> people caught in harms way. And there will always be a few rogue
>> soldiers, that rape, loot and pilage. That does not make those that
>> fought the Revolutinary War or those that founded this country
>> terrorists. By your convoluted standards, the British would be
>> terrorists too, for having gone to war against the Nazis.
>>
>> And yes, anyone that says those American patriots were terrorists is
>> giving support to the real terrorrists today who are indiscriminantly
>> killing anyone by placing bombs in restaurants, shops, and mosques and
>> flying planes into buildings. They would murder us all if they had
>> their way. Is that the same thing as Washington leading troops against
>> the British? Didn't you learn anything when they blew up your London
>> subway? Or are you just a commie pinko bedwetter too?
>>
>
> As I have previously said.
>
>>>what chance is there that any other information available in the USA is
>>>correct!!!!
>
> Which has nothing to do with the USA being the biggest fundraiser for
> international terrorist groups that indiscriminately murdered men, women
> and children for over 30 years. Or have you forgotten all about the public
> fundraising for the IRA.
>
> As you clearly don't know what you're talking about, wouldn't it be better
> to keep quiet, rather than let people think you're a complete fool.
>
>
>
>
In article <[email protected]>, "Graham Walters" <graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Graham Walters"
>> <graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>I think you'll find that men, women and children were indiscriminately
>>>murdered.
>>
>> Yes, indeed they were -- by *British* troops.
>>
>>>The history books here in the UK cover it quite well. Perhaps the
>>>history books in the USA decided not to cover that part of their history.
>>
>> Our history books cover the atrocities committed by *your* side quite
>> nicely,
>> thank you very much -- but I'll bet yours don't.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>>
>> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
>
>Oh dear, someone else that clearly doesn't know what they are talking about.
That person would be... youself, I'm afraid.
>
>After extensive research by American historians, there is NO evidence of any
>British troops committing acts of atrocity.
Obviously your mind is already made up, and there's no sense confusing you
with anything so mundane as actual facts.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"John Emmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I'm not excusing their behaviour, simply trying to put it into context. If
> it were my family being bombed and shot at, I imagine I might hide behind
a
> few skirts in order to try and fight back as best I could too.
So essentially what you're saying is that survival by any means is the only
thing that really counts. Forget about family, forget about honour, forget
about basic human diginity. That's exactly what you'd be doing hiding behind
those skirts. And, if you'd consider foregoing all those things just to
survive, what kind of person would you be and what kind of life would you
have left if you did survive?
Which leads me to ask, does such a person deserve to survive?
> As would just about anyone I imagine.
You couldn't be more wrong.
> Is it really so hard to try and imagine what the other guy is thinking?
Easy to see what you think.
Are you saying that Mel Gibson's version of the U.S. revolution was portayed
inaccurately...?
I'm shocked...
Seems more than just a bit hypocritical for citizens of a nation who
committed what was then considered treason to condemn the actions of others
in seeking their own freedoms, while the deliberate targeting of civilians
is reprehensible, lets not forget that one of the former Prime Ministers of
Israel was a terrorist according to modern definitions. If Hezbollah and
Hamas are terrorists and killers, and there's little doubt that they are,
what does it say about their enemies when they kill innocent people to
pursue the bad guys? It's only collateral damage when it's someone else's
family I suppose.
I think that Jesus fella got it pretty close to right, let those who haven't
sinned chuck the first rock...
All the condemnations from all the hypocrites in all the world is simply
rationalising the killing of people who typically have nothing to do with
the actions of those doing the killing, that's true on all sides of all
conflicts.
John E.
"Graham Walters" <graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Graham Walters"
> > <graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>I think you'll find that men, women and children were indiscriminately
> >>murdered.
> >
> > Yes, indeed they were -- by *British* troops.
> >
> >>The history books here in the UK cover it quite well. Perhaps the
> >>history books in the USA decided not to cover that part of their
history.
> >
> > Our history books cover the atrocities committed by *your* side quite
> > nicely,
> > thank you very much -- but I'll bet yours don't.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
> >
> > It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
>
> Oh dear, someone else that clearly doesn't know what they are talking
about.
>
> After extensive research by American historians, there is NO evidence of
any
> British troops committing acts of atrocity.
>
> If you want to know about history, ask a historian not Hollywood...
>
>
>
>
>
>
Speaking of fact:
******************
It is important to note here that John Hanson was NOT the 1st
President of the United states of America under the Articles of
Confederation. This claim is a MYTH created by Seymour Wemyss Smith
writing a book called John Hanson - Our First President in 1932.
Samuel Huntington was installed as the 1st President of the United
States on March 2, 1781 an official ceremony in Philadelphia. This 1st
U.S. Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, was unanimously
ratified by all 13 States on March 1, 1781 creating "The Perpetual
Union of the United States of America." At that moment the Continental
Congress ceased to exist and the United States of America in Congress
Assembled assumed all federal power under the new U.S. Constitution.
Huntington only served as President of the United States until July
resigning due to ill health. The United States in Congress Assembled
elected Thomas McKean the 2nd U.S. and served until John Hanson was
elected the 3rd President in November of 1781. President Hanson took
the time to write an official Thanks of Congress to Thomas McKean for
his services as President of the United States of America in Congress
Assembled. This letter, which can be found in Chapter One of President
Who? Forgotten Founders and is irrefutable proof that Hanson
recognized at least one President of the United States in Congress
Assembled serving before he assumed the unicameral chair.
*******************
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:00:44 +0100, "Graham Walters"
<graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> > Han wrote:
>>> > > [email protected] wrote in
>>> > > news:[email protected]:
>>> > >
>>> > > <a whole lot of nonsense>
>>> > >
>>> > > Here is my "nonsense":
>>> > >
>>> > > The Boston Teaparty and the Revolutionary War were conducted by a
>>> > > bunch of
>>> > > terrorists against the established lawfull government. Many people
>>> > > immigrated to the US under false pretenses (WWII war criminals,
>>> > > mafiosi,
>>> > > etc).
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Sorry Han. The founding fathers were not terrorists. They didn't
>>> > seek to indiscriminantly kill innocent men, women and children.
>>> > Unlike terrorists, they didn't plant bombs in shops, churchs, or town
>>> > centers to kill anyone, because they had moral values and common
>>> > decency still shared by the vast majority of Americans today. They
>>> > valued human life and only attacked legitimate targets of the British
>>> > colonial govt. Last time I checked, the Boston Teaparty you cited
>>> > consisted of throwing tea in the harbor, not deliberately killing
>>> > innocent civilians to create terror. To compare them to true
>>> > terrorists is offensive and can only give aid and comfort to an enemy
>>> > that is out to destroy us all.
>>> >
>>> > As for the OP's wife's letter, it sounds spot on to me. I hope she
>>> > sends it to other papers so that it will get published.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > Like the import of illegal drugs, import of illegal workers is (in
>>> > > large
>>> > > part) organized by home town demand. Who is doing the day labor in
>>> > > your
>>> > > town, local high school and college graduates?
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > Best regards
>>> > > Han
>>> > > email address is invalid
>>>
>>> Your argument is as invalid as your email address.
>>>
>>> There were lots of burning down of buildings and shootings and
>>> lynchings of folks on the wrong side of the argument. This is discussed
>>> weekly on South Carolina Educational radio with great relish.
>>> TB
>>
>>
>> During the revolutionary war American patriots did not indiscriminantly
>> kill innocent men, women and children. And if that is what SC
>> Educational radio is claiming, then they are a bunch of commie pinko
>> bedwetters, like you.
>>
>
>I think you'll find that men, women and children were indiscriminately
>murdered. The history books here in the UK cover it quite well. Perhaps the
>history books in the USA decided not to cover that part of their history.
>
>Like who was the first president of the United States, we all know it was
>John Hanson (1781 - 1782), so why does The White House's web site list it as
>George Washington.
>
>So if The White House can't get a simple thing like that right, what chance
>is there that any other information available in the USA is correct!!!!
>
>
>
>Why is it always the same, as soon as someone starts to lose an argument on
>the internet they resort to name calling....
>
>
>
>Graham
>
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> > Han wrote:
>> > > [email protected] wrote in
>> > > news:[email protected]:
>> > >
>> > > <a whole lot of nonsense>
>> > >
>> > > Here is my "nonsense":
>> > >
>> > > The Boston Teaparty and the Revolutionary War were conducted by a
>> > > bunch of
>> > > terrorists against the established lawfull government. Many people
>> > > immigrated to the US under false pretenses (WWII war criminals,
>> > > mafiosi,
>> > > etc).
>> >
>> >
>> > Sorry Han. The founding fathers were not terrorists. They didn't
>> > seek to indiscriminantly kill innocent men, women and children.
>> > Unlike terrorists, they didn't plant bombs in shops, churchs, or town
>> > centers to kill anyone, because they had moral values and common
>> > decency still shared by the vast majority of Americans today. They
>> > valued human life and only attacked legitimate targets of the British
>> > colonial govt. Last time I checked, the Boston Teaparty you cited
>> > consisted of throwing tea in the harbor, not deliberately killing
>> > innocent civilians to create terror. To compare them to true
>> > terrorists is offensive and can only give aid and comfort to an enemy
>> > that is out to destroy us all.
>> >
>> > As for the OP's wife's letter, it sounds spot on to me. I hope she
>> > sends it to other papers so that it will get published.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Like the import of illegal drugs, import of illegal workers is (in
>> > > large
>> > > part) organized by home town demand. Who is doing the day labor in
>> > > your
>> > > town, local high school and college graduates?
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Best regards
>> > > Han
>> > > email address is invalid
>>
>> Your argument is as invalid as your email address.
>>
>> There were lots of burning down of buildings and shootings and
>> lynchings of folks on the wrong side of the argument. This is discussed
>> weekly on South Carolina Educational radio with great relish.
>> TB
>
>
> During the revolutionary war American patriots did not indiscriminantly
> kill innocent men, women and children. And if that is what SC
> Educational radio is claiming, then they are a bunch of commie pinko
> bedwetters, like you.
>
I think you'll find that men, women and children were indiscriminately
murdered. The history books here in the UK cover it quite well. Perhaps the
history books in the USA decided not to cover that part of their history.
Like who was the first president of the United States, we all know it was
John Hanson (1781 - 1782), so why does The White House's web site list it as
George Washington.
So if The White House can't get a simple thing like that right, what chance
is there that any other information available in the USA is correct!!!!
Why is it always the same, as soon as someone starts to lose an argument on
the internet they resort to name calling....
Graham
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 01:20:14 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Prometheus
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:13:28 -0600, Dave Balderstone
>> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> >John Emmons <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> To the islamic militants of the world, it's a fight for what
>> >> they consider their souls, you don't have to agree with them to understand
>> >> that.
>> >
>> >You're wrong. To them, it's a fight to take over the world and destroy
>> >other cultures and religions.
>>
>> You mean like corporate America? Could you really say that the end
>> intention of companies like WalMart, McDonald's and Coca Cola isn't to
>> corner the global market on their ever-expanding niches and replace
>> the local cultures with a homgenized general pop culture? It's a
>> whole lot easier to make 6 billion of the same crappy widget than it
>> is to research every distinct cultural identity and tailor their
>> pruduct lines. (That isn't to say that doesn't happen, but it's done
>> with roughly the same ethic used to put mom and pop shops out of
>> business with super low prices, and then jack them back up when there
>> is no longer an alternative.)
>>
>> >They don't want to be left alone by Israel, they want to destroy Israel
>> >and kill every living Jew.
>> >
>> >They don't want to accomodate or be accomodated by the West, they want
>> >to destroy what we've built, our civilization, and replace it with what
>> >the Taliban accomplished in Afghanistan.
>>
>> See above. We (not you or I individually, but the West as a whole)
>> are trying to do the same thing to them. Our government(s) will never
>> be happy until everyone on the planet is wearing Levi Jeans and
>> watching MTV while sipping Coke and eating Doritos. I say we just let
>> the people elsewhere just do what they think they need to do, and stop
>> sticking CEO fingers in their pies. Of course by now, it's getting to
>> be a little late in the game to pack up our toys and go home.
>
>If you can honestly equate 16 year olds with explosives strapped to
>their waists blowing themselves up in buses filled with innocent women
>and children to selling people Coke and Levis, then I feel very, very
>sorry for you, believe you have a mental disease of some kind, and no
>longer wish to converse with you in any form.
>
>Good bye.
Yep.
Get 'er dun, fella.
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:14:45 GMT, "John Emmons" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Immigrants and immigration are becoming THE political item in the U.S. With
>little to no research or data to support their claims, anti-immigration
>zealots are trying desperately to control the issue, in order to win votes
>come November.
>
>It's a lot like "gay marriage" or abortion rights, another effort to drum up
>the voters and try to get them to the polls, hoping that they'll elect
>another crop of neo-conservatives.
>
>Obviously the entire nation isn't bashing immigrants, only those with an
>agenda. As for them being idiots, that's your word, not mine.
>
and you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
>As for those in hiding, of course you'd like to them to be out and in the
>open, they're easier to kill that way. Don't be naive, they hide the way
>that they do in order to win. They're fighting for their very way of life,
>frankly, anyone who's surprised or shocked at the efforts that insurgents
>undertake to try and survive is at best naive, at worst, they might be
>related to those idiots you wrote about above.
>
>I'm not excusing their behaviour, simply trying to put it into context. If
>it were my family being bombed and shot at, I imagine I might hide behind a
>few skirts in order to try and fight back as best I could too. As would just
>about anyone I imagine.
>
... and if they weren't hiding behind women's skirts and childrens'
playpens, the women and children wouldn't be getting shot at and killed
would they? What is so hard to understand about the fact that the people
who should be condemned are those using women and children as shields?
>Is it really so hard to try and imagine what the other guy is thinking?
>
I'm trying to imagine *if* the other guy is thinking when posing
arguments as superficial as the above.
>John E.
>
>
>
>"Kurt Ullman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:kurtullman-C054AD.18535330072006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx
>...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "John Emmons" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > I wasn't "suggesting" anything, I was making an observation about
>hypocrisy.
>> > Something the the entire world needs to better examine. Like the
>hypocrisy
>> > of a nation built on immigration trying to blame immigrants for all the
>> > problems in society.
>>
>> Of course that isn't what is happening. Nobody (okay few but the
>> congenital idiots) are saying anything about those who are here legally
>> and following the law. Also no talk about lessening quotas that let more
>> people in than any other country.
>>
>>
>> > As for using civilians, what would you have them do? While not excusing
>> > their atrocious behaviour, they're outnumbered, outgunned, etc. They
>fight
>> > the people that they consider their enemies the only way they can, seems
>to
>> > me that there were some people here in what's known as the U.S. who wore
>> > civilian clothes, hid behind trees and walls to shoot down their
>enemies
>> > too. They did what they did to whom they did the only way they knew how.
>> > It's all wrong. To the islamic militants of the world, it's a fight for
>what
>> > they consider their souls, you don't have to agree with them to
>understand
>> > that.
>> >
>> I would have them not hide behind the skirts of women, children
>> and non-combatant men.
>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Graham Walters wrote:
>
>> I think you'll find that men, women and children were indiscriminately
>> murdered. The history books here in the UK cover it quite well. Perhaps
>> the
>> history books in the USA decided not to cover that part of their history.
>>
>> Like who was the first president of the United States, we all know it was
>> John Hanson (1781 - 1782), so why does The White House's web site list it
>> as
>> George Washington.
>>
>> So if The White House can't get a simple thing like that right, what
>> chance
>> is there that any other information available in the USA is correct!!!!
>>
>>
>>
>> Why is it always the same, as soon as someone starts to lose an argument
>> on
>> the internet they resort to name calling....
>>
>>
>>
>> Graham
>
>
> I'd like to see your source for American patriots indiscriminantly
> killing men, women and children during the Revolutionary War. Source
> please?
>
> In any war, there will always be some incidental loss of life, by
> people caught in harms way. And there will always be a few rogue
> soldiers, that rape, loot and pilage. That does not make those that
> fought the Revolutinary War or those that founded this country
> terrorists. By your convoluted standards, the British would be
> terrorists too, for having gone to war against the Nazis.
>
> And yes, anyone that says those American patriots were terrorists is
> giving support to the real terrorrists today who are indiscriminantly
> killing anyone by placing bombs in restaurants, shops, and mosques and
> flying planes into buildings. They would murder us all if they had
> their way. Is that the same thing as Washington leading troops against
> the British? Didn't you learn anything when they blew up your London
> subway? Or are you just a commie pinko bedwetter too?
>
As I have previously said.
>>what chance is there that any other information available in the USA is
>>correct!!!!
Which has nothing to do with the USA being the biggest fundraiser for
international terrorist groups that indiscriminately murdered men, women and
children for over 30 years. Or have you forgotten all about the public
fundraising for the IRA.
As you clearly don't know what you're talking about, wouldn't it be better
to keep quiet, rather than let people think you're a complete fool.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Graham Walters"
> <graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I think you'll find that men, women and children were indiscriminately
>>murdered.
>
> Yes, indeed they were -- by *British* troops.
>
>>The history books here in the UK cover it quite well. Perhaps the
>>history books in the USA decided not to cover that part of their history.
>
> Our history books cover the atrocities committed by *your* side quite
> nicely,
> thank you very much -- but I'll bet yours don't.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Oh dear, someone else that clearly doesn't know what they are talking about.
After extensive research by American historians, there is NO evidence of any
British troops committing acts of atrocity.
If you want to know about history, ask a historian not Hollywood...
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Graham Walters" <graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I think you'll find that men, women and children were indiscriminately
>> murdered. The history books here in the UK cover it quite well. Perhaps
>> the history books in the USA decided not to cover that part of their
>> history.
>>
>> Like who was the first president of the United States, we all know it was
>> John Hanson (1781 - 1782), so why does The White House's web site list it
>> as George Washington.
>
> Apparently, you're not as smart as you think.
> http://www.snopes.com/history/american/hanson.htm
>
>> So if The White House can't get a simple thing like that right, what
>> chance is there that any other information available in the USA is
>> correct!!!!
>
> Ah, the irony.
>
> todd
Sorry my mistake, I was referring from memory.
John Hanson was the 3rd President of the United States, Samuel Huntington
was the first, followed by Thomas McKean.
If you want to know about history, ask a historian.
Nick Hull wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "digitalmaster" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It depends on if you are talking about an appointed interim leader or a
>> duly elected president.Who the British think the first president was
>> means less to me than whether the cat has constipation or not.
>
> I don't agree; both have EQUAL meaning to me ;)
I find the cat having constipation to be of greater concern--if he doesn't
go soon then there's going to be a vet bill.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Graham Walters wrote:
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> > Han wrote:
>>> > > [email protected] wrote in
>>> > > news:[email protected]:
>>> > >
>>> > > <a whole lot of nonsense>
>>> > >
>>> > > Here is my "nonsense":
>>> > >
>>> > > The Boston Teaparty and the Revolutionary War were conducted by a
>>> > > bunch of
>>> > > terrorists against the established lawfull government. Many people
>>> > > immigrated to the US under false pretenses (WWII war criminals,
>>> > > mafiosi,
>>> > > etc).
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Sorry Han. The founding fathers were not terrorists. They didn't
>>> > seek to indiscriminantly kill innocent men, women and children.
>>> > Unlike terrorists, they didn't plant bombs in shops, churchs, or town
>>> > centers to kill anyone, because they had moral values and common
>>> > decency still shared by the vast majority of Americans today. They
>>> > valued human life and only attacked legitimate targets of the British
>>> > colonial govt. Last time I checked, the Boston Teaparty you cited
>>> > consisted of throwing tea in the harbor, not deliberately killing
>>> > innocent civilians to create terror. To compare them to true
>>> > terrorists is offensive and can only give aid and comfort to an enemy
>>> > that is out to destroy us all.
>>> >
>>> > As for the OP's wife's letter, it sounds spot on to me. I hope she
>>> > sends it to other papers so that it will get published.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > Like the import of illegal drugs, import of illegal workers is (in
>>> > > large
>>> > > part) organized by home town demand. Who is doing the day labor in
>>> > > your
>>> > > town, local high school and college graduates?
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > Best regards
>>> > > Han
>>> > > email address is invalid
>>>
>>> Your argument is as invalid as your email address.
>>>
>>> There were lots of burning down of buildings and shootings and
>>> lynchings of folks on the wrong side of the argument. This is discussed
>>> weekly on South Carolina Educational radio with great relish.
>>> TB
>>
>>
>> During the revolutionary war American patriots did not indiscriminantly
>> kill innocent men, women and children. And if that is what SC
>> Educational radio is claiming, then they are a bunch of commie pinko
>> bedwetters, like you.
>>
>
> I think you'll find that men, women and children were indiscriminately
> murdered. The history books here in the UK cover it quite well. Perhaps
> the history books in the USA decided not to cover that part of their
> history.
>
> Like who was the first president of the United States, we all know it was
> John Hanson (1781 - 1782), so why does The White House's web site list it
> as George Washington.
Actually, if you count presidents of the Continental Congress, which is what
he was, there being no nation called the "United States" until after
adoption of the Constitution, then John Hanson was the _third_.
> So if The White House can't get a simple thing like that right, what
> chance is there that any other information available in the USA is
> correct!!!!
So if some random netloon can't get a thing like that right what chance is
there that any other information he provides is correct?
> Why is it always the same, as soon as someone starts to lose an argument
> on the internet they resort to name calling....
Why is it that someone who makes a great show of his own ignorance then
comments on others "resorting to namecalling"?
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 17:21:44 GMT, "Al" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> A: Why did you find it necessary to post this to rec.woodworking?
A. Is this the good ole boy club? Because it is inline with the topic. I
just changed the name. Like I said to him this one is done and I am through
with this topic.
>>...I do block people who post things that are copywritten...
>
> 2: It's "copyrighted", not 'copywritten'. That's because it's
> "copyright", not "copywrite".
Thank you for the spell check that my software over looked but never the
less you understood what I was saying. Not looking to lock horns over this
with anyone as anyone else in here it was with this particular topic and I
as well as you am aloud my opinion. So why are you singling me out? I am a
honest man and stand by it I can't help it others are not.
>
> --
> LRod
>
> Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
>
> Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
>
> http://www.woodbutcher.net
>
> Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
>
> email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
> If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
> care to correspond with you anyway.
So you have a nice day,
Al
Once again opinions are like A@#wholes everyone has one, including me!
"Graham Walters" <graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> > Han wrote:
>>> > > [email protected] wrote in
>>> > > news:[email protected]:
>>> > >
>>> > > <a whole lot of nonsense>
>>> > >
>>> > > Here is my "nonsense":
>>> > >
>>> > > The Boston Teaparty and the Revolutionary War were conducted by a
>>> > > bunch of
>>> > > terrorists against the established lawfull government. Many people
>>> > > immigrated to the US under false pretenses (WWII war criminals,
>>> > > mafiosi,
>>> > > etc).
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Sorry Han. The founding fathers were not terrorists. They didn't
>>> > seek to indiscriminantly kill innocent men, women and children.
>>> > Unlike terrorists, they didn't plant bombs in shops, churchs, or town
>>> > centers to kill anyone, because they had moral values and common
>>> > decency still shared by the vast majority of Americans today. They
>>> > valued human life and only attacked legitimate targets of the British
>>> > colonial govt. Last time I checked, the Boston Teaparty you cited
>>> > consisted of throwing tea in the harbor, not deliberately killing
>>> > innocent civilians to create terror. To compare them to true
>>> > terrorists is offensive and can only give aid and comfort to an enemy
>>> > that is out to destroy us all.
>>> >
>>> > As for the OP's wife's letter, it sounds spot on to me. I hope she
>>> > sends it to other papers so that it will get published.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > Like the import of illegal drugs, import of illegal workers is (in
>>> > > large
>>> > > part) organized by home town demand. Who is doing the day labor in
>>> > > your
>>> > > town, local high school and college graduates?
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > Best regards
>>> > > Han
>>> > > email address is invalid
>>>
>>> Your argument is as invalid as your email address.
>>>
>>> There were lots of burning down of buildings and shootings and
>>> lynchings of folks on the wrong side of the argument. This is discussed
>>> weekly on South Carolina Educational radio with great relish.
>>> TB
>>
>>
>> During the revolutionary war American patriots did not indiscriminantly
>> kill innocent men, women and children. And if that is what SC
>> Educational radio is claiming, then they are a bunch of commie pinko
>> bedwetters, like you.
>>
>
> I think you'll find that men, women and children were indiscriminately
> murdered. The history books here in the UK cover it quite well. Perhaps
> the history books in the USA decided not to cover that part of their
> history.
>
> Like who was the first president of the United States, we all know it was
> John Hanson (1781 - 1782), so why does The White House's web site list it
> as George Washington.
>
> So if The White House can't get a simple thing like that right, what
> chance is there that any other information available in the USA is
> correct!!!!
>
>
>
> Why is it always the same, as soon as someone starts to lose an argument
> on the internet they resort to name calling....
>
>
>
> Graham
>
It depends on if you are talking about an appointed interim leader or a duly
elected president.Who the British think the first president was means less
to me than whether the cat has constipation or not.
He's a Brit. Why worry about it? They still think that they gave us this
country. They also think they saved us during WW 2. There's no end to their
delusions. I do believe that they invented revisionist history.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Graham Walters"
<graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>, "Graham Walters"
> >> <graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>>I think you'll find that men, women and children were indiscriminately
> >>>murdered.
> >>
> >> Yes, indeed they were -- by *British* troops.
> >>
> >>>The history books here in the UK cover it quite well. Perhaps the
> >>>history books in the USA decided not to cover that part of their
history.
> >>
> >> Our history books cover the atrocities committed by *your* side quite
> >> nicely,
> >> thank you very much -- but I'll bet yours don't.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
> >>
> >> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
> >
> >Oh dear, someone else that clearly doesn't know what they are talking
about.
>
> That person would be... youself, I'm afraid.
> >
> >After extensive research by American historians, there is NO evidence of
any
> >British troops committing acts of atrocity.
>
> Obviously your mind is already made up, and there's no sense confusing you
> with anything so mundane as actual facts.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>,
"John Emmons" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I wasn't "suggesting" anything, I was making an observation about hypocrisy.
> Something the the entire world needs to better examine. Like the hypocrisy
> of a nation built on immigration trying to blame immigrants for all the
> problems in society.
Of course that isn't what is happening. Nobody (okay few but the
congenital idiots) are saying anything about those who are here legally
and following the law. Also no talk about lessening quotas that let more
people in than any other country.
> As for using civilians, what would you have them do? While not excusing
> their atrocious behaviour, they're outnumbered, outgunned, etc. They fight
> the people that they consider their enemies the only way they can, seems to
> me that there were some people here in what's known as the U.S. who wore
> civilian clothes, hid behind trees and walls to shoot down their enemies
> too. They did what they did to whom they did the only way they knew how.
> It's all wrong. To the islamic militants of the world, it's a fight for what
> they consider their souls, you don't have to agree with them to understand
> that.
>
I would have them not hide behind the skirts of women, children
and non-combatant men.
In article <[email protected]>,
"digitalmaster" <[email protected]> wrote:
> It depends on if you are talking about an appointed interim leader or a duly
> elected president.Who the British think the first president was means less
> to me than whether the cat has constipation or not.
I don't agree; both have EQUAL meaning to me ;)
--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
In article <[email protected]>,
"Graham Walters" <graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Or have you forgotten all about the public
> fundraising for the IRA.
I have never given money to the IRA. Maybe guns, ammo, C4, but never
money ;)
--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
In article <[email protected]>,
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
> He's a Brit. Why worry about it? They still think that they gave us this
> country. They also think they saved us during WW 2. There's no end to their
> delusions. I do believe that they invented revisionist history.
And they invented the wheel and airplane, and were the first humans as
the Piltdown man proved ;)
--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
In article <[email protected]>, "Graham Walters" <graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I think you'll find that men, women and children were indiscriminately
>murdered.
Yes, indeed they were -- by *British* troops.
>The history books here in the UK cover it quite well. Perhaps the
>history books in the USA decided not to cover that part of their history.
Our history books cover the atrocities committed by *your* side quite nicely,
thank you very much -- but I'll bet yours don't.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 06:40:50 GMT, "Al" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"John Emmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Immigrants and immigration are becoming THE political item in the U.S.
>> With
>> little to no research or data to support their claims, anti-immigration
>> zealots are trying desperately to control the issue, in order to win votes
>> come November.
>>
>
>I have no problem with immigrants however if they enter a country illegally
>then I have a problem with them. In this country or yours for that matter
>they are criminals if they break the law of the land. It's not anti
>immigration we welcome them to come legally that means come here and go
>through the process like many of our four fathers did. I would not move to
>Mexico and expect them to speak English for me I would learn Spanish. That
>is not what they expect of us the want us to speak Spanish for them and
>change our ways. My daughter was turned down for a job at AutoZone because
>she could not speak Spanish a foreign language. One little thing but I look
>at it as a respect issue as well as for AutoZone they lost a customer. No
>big deal to them I am sure but to expect an American citizen born raised and
>who did graduate from our schools system with high marks to have to change
>our language to make it easier for the illegal that crap.
>
As an interesting exercise, take a look at what is required to be an
alien in Mexico. Let's just say that openly criticizing the government of
Mexico if you are an alien living there is *not* a good way to remain in
that country.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 06:40:50 GMT, "Al" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"John Emmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> Immigrants and immigration are becoming THE political item in the U.S.
>>> With
>>> little to no research or data to support their claims, anti-immigration
>>> zealots are trying desperately to control the issue, in order to win
>>> votes
>>> come November.
>>>
>>
>>I have no problem with immigrants however if they enter a country
>>illegally
>>then I have a problem with them. In this country or yours for that matter
>>they are criminals if they break the law of the land. It's not anti
>>immigration we welcome them to come legally that means come here and go
>>through the process like many of our four fathers did. I would not move
>>to
>>Mexico and expect them to speak English for me I would learn Spanish.
>>That
>>is not what they expect of us the want us to speak Spanish for them and
>>change our ways. My daughter was turned down for a job at AutoZone
>>because
>>she could not speak Spanish a foreign language. One little thing but I
>>look
>>at it as a respect issue as well as for AutoZone they lost a customer. No
>>big deal to them I am sure but to expect an American citizen born raised
>>and
>>who did graduate from our schools system with high marks to have to change
>>our language to make it easier for the illegal that crap.
>>
>
> As an interesting exercise, take a look at what is required to be an
> alien in Mexico. Let's just say that openly criticizing the government of
> Mexico if you are an alien living there is *not* a good way to remain in
> that country.
>
It should be that way here as well there are allot of things I disagree with
in the country however my dad fought in WWII and I fly my flag openly and
with respect to what it stands for. The men that died for that flag did so
to protect our way of life which is now very threatend. Unless you are a
citizen of this country I don't feel you have the same rights as our
citizens. I also feel you should be locked up if not shot for burning a US
flag, to me that is treason against this country. As always this is my
opinion and the way I feel strongly, so for all the people out there that
want to I have my flaq jacket on go for it.
Al
>
>
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
>
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
In article <[email protected]>,
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The fact is, they were military targets. They were also, obviously, large
> population centers as well. The stated purpose of using the atomic bombs
> was to hasten an end to the war and avoid the losses on both sides that
> would have come with a presumed invasion of the Japanese main island.
> There's no way of knowing what would have actually taken place had the
> atomic bombs not been dropped.
You don't accept any of the arguments that we were showing our might to
Stalin? Japan would have starved itself in short order without an
invasion - an island nation with little natural resources for making war
materials. They were running out of time once the allies recaptured most
of the South Pacific, cut off major supply lines and knocking at their
door.
Perhaps one can justify and accept the circumstances leading up to the
first bomb dropped on Hiroshima. However, do we have as much standing to
defend the second? Given that much of the communications infrastructure
of Japan was in tatters, plus lacking modern methods of email, cell
phones, satellites, etc - waiting merely 3 days before dropping on
Nagasaki may have been rushed, unjustified and more illustrative of
sending the Russians a message. They certainly were not our favorite
allies and much distrusted. What if we had waited a full week? Did the
Japanese submit a formal declaration that they intended to fight on no
matter what we had done to Hiroshima?
--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
__________
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
Corporate States of America and to the
Republicans for which it stands, one nation,
under debt, easily divisible, with liberty
and justice for oil."
- Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05
Well if it against the AUP that's all good however something like this is
more acceptable to me then the posting of copywriten and or pirated software
that is seen so much on these things. Don't you agree?
Al
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>> My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the
>> Orange County Register which, of course, was not printed. So I decided
>> to "print" it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Please pass
>> it along if you feel so inclined. Thank you.
>>
>> (signed) Dave LaBonte
>>
>
> Please tell you wife Rosemary that posting chain letters like this
> is contrary to your ISP's AUP.
>
> --
>
> FF
>
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 17:21:44 GMT, "Al" <[email protected]> wrote:
A: Why did you find it necessary to post this to rec.woodworking?
>...I do block people who post things that are copywritten...
2: It's "copyrighted", not 'copywritten'. That's because it's
"copyright", not "copywrite".
--
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.