Odd interaction with a road rager

"Ken [NY)" wrote in message
...

So Mr. Bush is creating terrorists, as the Democrats in the
streets are saying? Just by fighting terrorists and their support
countries?

Yes. I'm glad you understand this so well. Thank you for stating it so
plainly.

When we ignore the Geneva Convention for our prisoners of war, and when we
use torture, when we invade another country based on lies, we have no moral
ground to stand on, and we create more people who have good reason to hate
us.

I can tell you, if my comrades were being killed or held prisoner for
fighting for what they believed in, I would not be questioning my beliefs --
instead, I'd be fighting even harder -- wouldn't you? Did the attacks on
September 11 make you less patriotic? Did you feel more or less in
solidarity with other Americans? Why do you think it works differently for
others?

Meanwhile, our national resources are diverted into a useless war abroad and
to the wealthy who don't need the money. Causes that would make our nation
stronger -- devoting resources to lifelong learning so that we are
employable all our lives; ensuring that everyone has access to quality
health care, not just the rich, so that we are physically able to pursue our
dreams, materially and non-materially; putting money into infrastructure
such as roads and bridges so that we can be a more economically viable
country -- well, I could go on and on -- are starved. As the gap between
rich and poor widen, we look less like other developed nations which take
care of their citizens, and more like the Third World.

So, if you want to advance the cause of Osama Bin Laden, vote for George W.
Bush. He is the man who continues to antagonize both our enemies and our
allies, making us ineffective in the world, and weakens our nation at home.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

"Ken [NY)" wrote:
Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, remember?

All of whom were indoctrinated in puritanical state-run
religious schools, much like the Saudis are running in
other Arabic countries as a "humanitarian" gesture. When you
raise a guy from birth to be a fanatic, don't be surprised
if he isn't very tolerant of our right to disagree with
his views.


So the whole notion of creating terrorists by fighting terrorists is
hogwash.

That depends on whether your definition of "fighting terrorists" includes
arming men like Saddam and Usama and training their "soldiers" for them.
Seems like every time we help the enemy of our enemy like that, he turns
around and bites us on the backside within ten years.


"I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our
troops dispersed through the world only at
the directive of the United Nations."
-Senator John F. Kerry, Harvard Crimson 1970

While that quote does not seem out of character, credit would
have to go to Lieutenant Kerry in 1970. I would suspect that
the date is wrong, as nobody ever quoted Lieutenant Kerry on
any subject as far as I can tell. He hung out with the Brooklyn
protesters, but never stood up and spoke for them until he
left the Navy in 1971 to become a politician. By October '71,
congresscritters like Ted Kennedy were praising him as a future
colleague and he was appearing in Doonbury comics.

BTW, I beg to differ with you on mass arrests. In a free country,
you can't just round up everybody you see who might or might not
be involved in crime.

Mitch.

"Ken [NY)" wrote:
Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, remember?

All of whom were indoctrinated in puritanical state-run
religious schools, much like the Saudis are running in
other Arabic countries as a "humanitarian" gesture. When you
raise a guy from birth to be a fanatic, don't be surprised
if he isn't very tolerant of our right to disagree with
his views.


So the whole notion of creating terrorists by fighting terrorists is
hogwash.

That depends on whether your definition of "fighting terrorists" includes
arming men like Saddam and Usama and training their "soldiers" for them.
Seems like every time we help the enemy of our enemy like that, he turns
around and bites us on the backside within ten years.


"I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our
troops dispersed through the world only at
the directive of the United Nations."
-Senator John F. Kerry, Harvard Crimson 1970

While that quote does not seem out of character, credit would
have to go to Lieutenant Kerry in 1970. I would suspect that
the date is wrong, as nobody ever quoted Lieutenant Kerry on
any subject as far as I can tell. He hung out with the Brooklyn
protesters, but never stood up and spoke for them until he
left the Navy in 1971 to become a politician. By October '71,
congresscritters like Ted Kennedy were praising him as a future
colleague and he was appearing in Doonbury comics.

BTW, I beg to differ with you on mass arrests. In a free country,
you can't just round up everybody you see who might or might not
be involved in crime.

Mitch.

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 19:10:52 GMT, "S o r n i" wrote:

So let's see: you're Ken Case, Manny, AND Quandon?!? Hell, maybe you WERE
Mike Beauchump, too!

No, not Mike.

This newsreader is configured for someone else (Quandon), and I forgot to log in
(long story).

And, I did not equate those two things at all.

People can read the thread.

Well, I've just re-read it, and for the life of me, I can't see the two things
equated, *except* in that in each case, a perceived wrong will result in anger
and retalliation.

I wasn't commenting on who'se perception was the most accurate.

LOL. I was using Manny's quote (exact language, which I see you
snipped) to make a point. I'm not even a Republican. It's the
mean-spirited bitterness of the left and their blatant hypocrisy in
the recent past that's even motivated me to speak up. I'm usually
a-political to a fault (don't really give a crap; don't believe it
really matters).

There's nothing mean spirited about disagreeing about when and where
to go to war. Or the likely outcome of such a war.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people like Al Gore, Ted
Kennedy, Michael Moore, Howard Dean, etc. Mean, personal attacks -- often
blatantly dishonest and ALWAYS blatantly disrespectful -- rather than
issue-oriented disagreements. Been going on for years now, too, not just
last few months.

As I said, that's politics.

I wasn't there, so I've no idea about what Kerry did on his boat in Vietnam, but
I find it hard to believe the stories about the records being falsified - after
all, he wasn't a politician at the time.

And attacking someones war record is as mean spirited and disrespectful as you
can get. IMNSHO.

KC

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 19:10:52 GMT, "S o r n i" wrote:

So let's see: you're Ken Case, Manny, AND Quandon?!? Hell, maybe you WERE
Mike Beauchump, too!

No, not Mike.

This newsreader is configured for someone else (Quandon), and I forgot to log in
(long story).

And, I did not equate those two things at all.

People can read the thread.

Well, I've just re-read it, and for the life of me, I can't see the two things
equated, *except* in that in each case, a perceived wrong will result in anger
and retalliation.

I wasn't commenting on who'se perception was the most accurate.

LOL. I was using Manny's quote (exact language, which I see you
snipped) to make a point. I'm not even a Republican. It's the
mean-spirited bitterness of the left and their blatant hypocrisy in
the recent past that's even motivated me to speak up. I'm usually
a-political to a fault (don't really give a crap; don't believe it
really matters).

There's nothing mean spirited about disagreeing about when and where
to go to war. Or the likely outcome of such a war.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people like Al Gore, Ted
Kennedy, Michael Moore, Howard Dean, etc. Mean, personal attacks -- often
blatantly dishonest and ALWAYS blatantly disrespectful -- rather than
issue-oriented disagreements. Been going on for years now, too, not just
last few months.

As I said, that's politics.

I wasn't there, so I've no idea about what Kerry did on his boat in Vietnam, but
I find it hard to believe the stories about the records being falsified - after
all, he wasn't a politician at the time.

And attacking someones war record is as mean spirited and disrespectful as you
can get. IMNSHO.

KC

S o r n i wrote:

I'm talking about people like Al Gore, Ted
Kennedy, Michael Moore, Howard Dean, etc. Mean, personal attacks -- often
blatantly dishonest and ALWAYS blatantly disrespectful -- rather than
issue-oriented disagreements. Been going on for years now, too, not just
last few months.

Please. It's been going on since Thomas Jefferson ran for president.
Read some history.

And, more pertinent to today, it's really weird to selectively blame
people like Michael Moore for not being "respectful." Have you _really_
never heard Rush Limbaugh?


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

S o r n i wrote:

I'm talking about people like Al Gore, Ted
Kennedy, Michael Moore, Howard Dean, etc. Mean, personal attacks -- often
blatantly dishonest and ALWAYS blatantly disrespectful -- rather than
issue-oriented disagreements. Been going on for years now, too, not just
last few months.

Please. It's been going on since Thomas Jefferson ran for president.
Read some history.

And, more pertinent to today, it's really weird to selectively blame
people like Michael Moore for not being "respectful." Have you _really_
never heard Rush Limbaugh?


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Quandon wrote:

There's nothing mean spirited about disagreeing about when and where
to go to war. Or the likely outcome of such a war.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people like Al Gore,
Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, Howard Dean, etc. Mean, personal
attacks -- often blatantly dishonest and ALWAYS blatantly
disrespectful -- rather than issue-oriented disagreements. Been
going on for years now, too, not just last few months.

As I said, that's politics.

I wasn't there, so I've no idea about what Kerry did on his boat in
Vietnam, but I find it hard to believe the stories about the records
being falsified - after all, he wasn't a politician at the time.

I have yet to see one person representing the Republican Party question his
service in Viet Nam. Hell, they're even afraid to bring up his anti-war
actions and congressional testimony AFTERWARDS (legitimate issues, IMO).
What they DO talk about is his voting record in the 3 decades since VN,
which Kerry never answers or addresses.

And attacking someones war record is as mean spirited and
disrespectful as you can get. IMNSHO.

Absolutely agree. The only ones with a right to do that are people who were
/actually there/, and even then they must be extremely careful.

Bill "JFK's the one who's going negative and personal from what I've seen"
S.

Quandon wrote:

There's nothing mean spirited about disagreeing about when and where
to go to war. Or the likely outcome of such a war.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people like Al Gore,
Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, Howard Dean, etc. Mean, personal
attacks -- often blatantly dishonest and ALWAYS blatantly
disrespectful -- rather than issue-oriented disagreements. Been
going on for years now, too, not just last few months.

As I said, that's politics.

I wasn't there, so I've no idea about what Kerry did on his boat in
Vietnam, but I find it hard to believe the stories about the records
being falsified - after all, he wasn't a politician at the time.

I have yet to see one person representing the Republican Party question his
service in Viet Nam. Hell, they're even afraid to bring up his anti-war
actions and congressional testimony AFTERWARDS (legitimate issues, IMO).
What they DO talk about is his voting record in the 3 decades since VN,
which Kerry never answers or addresses.

And attacking someones war record is as mean spirited and
disrespectful as you can get. IMNSHO.

Absolutely agree. The only ones with a right to do that are people who were
/actually there/, and even then they must be extremely careful.

Bill "JFK's the one who's going negative and personal from what I've seen"
S.

Frank Krygowski wrote:
S o r n i wrote:

I'm talking about people like Al Gore, Ted
Kennedy, Michael Moore, Howard Dean, etc. Mean, personal attacks --
often blatantly dishonest and ALWAYS blatantly disrespectful --
rather than issue-oriented disagreements. Been going on for years
now, too, not just last few months.

Please. It's been going on since Thomas Jefferson ran for president.
Read some history.

Right, but people USED to be able to take it as well as dish it out. I'm
sick to death of these whiny Dems saying how NEGATIVE and PERSONAL the 'Pubs
were. As you say, "please".

And, more pertinent to today, it's really weird to selectively blame
people like Michael Moore for not being "respectful." Have you
_really_ never heard Rush Limbaugh?

Honestly? I've never heard more than about 3 minutes of him (probably less
than 20 minutes total). I just don't like arrogant, blustery people.

Bill "even when I /might/ agree with a lot of what they say" S.