On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:43:21 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
news

Islam: A political movement for Mohammed's perversions and blood-lust

It must be Hatred and Bigotry Day at the Stinkin' Desert Junkyard and
Rubber-sheet Ranch.

Perhaps this is a good time to vote on what "rensi Buddhist" gummer
should be reincarnated as.

I say swarf-infested shop rag sucked into a gearbox.

Wayne

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:43:21 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
news

Islam: A political movement for Mohammed's perversions and blood-lust

It must be Hatred and Bigotry Day at the Stinkin' Desert Junkyard and
Rubber-sheet Ranch.

Perhaps this is a good time to vote on what "rensi Buddhist" gummer
should be reincarnated as.

I say swarf-infested shop rag sucked into a gearbox.

Wayne

Hmm. I thought he'd probably come back as a Muslim cab driver who votes
Democrat.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 01:54:27 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


I don't need to win a bickerbanter exchange here; respond as you might
to preserve ego and apply your inteliigence as you will.


What other significance does that
site have? Why there rather than elsewhere, other than to make a
statement?

You'll have to ask them.

In other words, you also see no alternative explanation.

Ed is still under that bridge in 1970, stoked to the eyeballs on pot and
happy dreams.

Pity

Gunner


I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 01:54:27 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


I don't need to win a bickerbanter exchange here; respond as you might
to preserve ego and apply your inteliigence as you will.


What other significance does that
site have? Why there rather than elsewhere, other than to make a
statement?

You'll have to ask them.

In other words, you also see no alternative explanation.

Ed is still under that bridge in 1970, stoked to the eyeballs on pot and
happy dreams.

Pity

Gunner

What are you talking about, you freaking welfare queen?

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 01:54:27 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 03:06:53 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Oh, get off your high horse. Given your age, if you did something
"substantial," and were in a fight, it must have been in Vietnam. What the
hell threat to our Constitution was presented by the Viet Cong?

That question is properly directed at Washington DC. Service members
don't get to decide where they go or what they do.

So what? The fact remains that you claimed you defended the
constitution. You didn't then, and you aren't doing so now. Quite the
opposite, you're adding to the fear mongering, defending persecution,
and encouraging those who'd enjoy religious war. Oh wait, you'll say
that you're not in favor of religious war *but*...

Some others regarded themselves as
too good to serve and deferments weren't hard to get

You mean, like Bush and Cheney did? Boy you sure showed them at the
ballot box, eh? Whoda' thunk that they'd go on to punk you just like
they did the system.

Are you still buying that crap, after all these years? If you fought in
Vietnam, you were there to kill people who were no threat to you, who you
didn't understand, and who were on their turf, not yours. You were there
because LBJ decided he wasn't going to be "the first American president to
lose a war," which is historically questionable but a clear expression that
our service men and women were there because of his outsized ego, and little
else. You had your head packed full of lies by politicians who didn't have
to worry about their own lives, and only needed a jingoistic justification
to risk yours.

Geez, what memories. You sound like a hippie demonstrator smokin'
dope or dropping acid, shouting slogans, spitting on soldiers and
slinging chicken blood. Been watching your Jane Fonda tapes again?

Wow, not a single rebuttal, just a boatload of outrageous smears.
Typical phony foreman.

I thought we grew out of that and woke up decades ago.

Me too.

WTF? Clearly you were still asleep when going along with GW's
unnecessary war. And now we can see why - because you're more than
ignorant enough to classify 1.5 billion guilty by association.

I do strongly question their motives for wanting to build near ground
zero.

So, question their motives.

I do, and I'm hearing a lot of self-righteous kumbaya bull**** and ad
hominem attack but no responsive replies to my question of why there?

Ever heard of google? Of course you have, but you're not genuinely
interested in facts, only in smears to rationalize an indefensible
position. Why should anyone hold your hand and thereby give your
foolishness an air of credibility?

I'm asking why you've jumped to conclusions.

Lead me to a different conclusion with some basis for it. Lead from in
front rather than fragging from flanks or behind. Offer evidence
rather than rhetoric.

"Fragging from behind"? What an A-hole! It's beyond me why Ed shows
you any respect at all. You're not one bit better than gummer or
buerste.

And what statement do you presume they want to make?

Presume or conclude, make up your mind. I've already stated how that
looks to me: like a desecration of the memories of the many that died
there on 9/11. I really would like to be convinced that this isn't
the case

BS You've ignored every fact, and you aren't capable of changing your
mind on this or any other issue.

but res ipsa loquitor.

Hoo boy. Foreman thinks he's *entitled* to jump to conclusions!

Rauf says he wants to
promote understanding. I don't know if he's sincere, but his life's work
suggests that he is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feisal_Abdul_Rauf

From which I quote in sufficient volume so as to preserve context:

"The editors of the magazine wrote "While he cannot quite bring
himself to blame the terrorists for being terrorists, he finds it easy
to blame the United States for being a victim of terrorism."[24] In
2004, he said the U.S. and the West must acknowledge the harm they
have done to Muslims before terrorism can end. Speaking at his New
York mosque, Rauf said:

The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians.
But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden
and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets.

He also said that there could be little progress in Western-Islamic
relations until the U.S. acknowledged backing Middle East dictators,
and the U.S. President gave an "American Culpa" speech to the Muslim
world, because there are "an endless supply of angry young Muslim
rebels prepared to die for their cause and there [is] no sign of the
attacks ending unless there [is] a fundamental change in the
world".[6]"
---

Sounds to me like the understanding he wants to promote is that we are
to blame for being victims of terrorism

What a coinkydink that you weren't able to find snorf any of his
quotes that refute your negative opinion of him. Such as this one:
“The truth is that killing innocent people is always wrong — and no
argument or excuse, no matter how deeply believed, can ever make it
right. No religion on earth condones the killing of innocent people,
no faith tradition tolerates the random killing of our brothers and
sisters on this earth. ... Islamic law is clearly against terrorism,
against any kind of deliberate killing of civilians or similar
‘collateral damage'."

Here are a couple of facts.

1. Xenophobes will always find a way to justify their affliction,
frequently by smearing their imagined "enemies" as you've been doing
here since the get go.

2. Rauf, while perhaps technically correct about no religion condoning
the killing of innocents, neglects to mention the backdoor method that
tends to be employed by people like you - declare the innocents guilty
by association alone.

Perhaps you'll join Rauf in seeking such changes in American attitude?
You and Hanoi Jane perhaps?

Can your arguments get any weaker....

Might this be a guilt thing after bragging about how your puritan
ancestors slaughtered native Americans and took their land?

.... of course they can! And they got even worse but I snipped the
rest. I gotta' say, I've known for quite a while that you weren't the
sharpest knife in the drawer, but holy crap, you've really been
outdoing yourself in this thread.

Wayne

Military service at that time was still regarded by some as a
patriotic duty, particularly so by those whose fathers served
honorably in WW II and Korea.

That was pretty standard thinking among the people I knew in high
school, and early in the war that sentiment was fairly strong. As the
war went on, the public began to wonder what we were accomplishing.
When people began to distrust what the government was reporting about
the war, the sentiment changed.

Some others regarded themselves as
too good to serve and deferments weren't hard to get: get married,
become a professional student or have a critical skill like
engineering.

I"m not so sure about those categories for deferment. The college
student deferment did exist - that was a 2S, but I'm not sure it
carried over if you went to graduate school. It did carry over for
those who went to medical school, a 2M deferment, since upon
graduation there was great demand for physicians in the military.
Anybody remember if you got a deferment if you were getting a PhD?
Being an engineer didn't get you a deferment. One of my fraternity
brothers graduated with a degree in chemical engineering, one of the
hot degrees at the time (circa 1970), and got drafted a short time
after graduation. He got lucky. One day in basic the instructor
asked if anybody knew any chemistry. One guy said he had it in high
school. Another guy had some chemistry in college. Jim said - I'm a
chemical engineer. That got him a job in the lab at a military
hospital somewhere. Not very close to his degree, but it kept him out
of harms way. I don't think being married got you a draft exemption.
Nobody I knew got that exemption, so I suspect that one didn't exist.
Anybody remember?

Some didn't serve because they were deemed by the
government as unfit to serve.

Another fraternity brother - a likeable 'character', and not
necessarily a peacenik - starved himself till he was skin and bones to
be underweight. He was a walking skeleton, but otherwise seemed
healthy. Poor devil had to give up beer. I don't believe he had to
serve, but I don't know if his weight kept him out.

RWL

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 22:47:00 -0400, GeoLane at PTD dot NET GeoLane at
PTD dot NET wrote:


Military service at that time was still regarded by some as a
patriotic duty, particularly so by those whose fathers served
honorably in WW II and Korea.

That was pretty standard thinking among the people I knew in high
school, and early in the war that sentiment was fairly strong. As the
war went on, the public began to wonder what we were accomplishing.
When people began to distrust what the government was reporting about
the war, the sentiment changed.

You mean what those Democrats were reporting. JFK and LBJ were both
Democrats. It was..as nearly all wars in the past 100 yrs have
been...Democrat cluster****s.


Some others regarded themselves as
too good to serve and deferments weren't hard to get: get married,
become a professional student or have a critical skill like
engineering.

I"m not so sure about those categories for deferment. The college
student deferment did exist - that was a 2S, but I'm not sure it
carried over if you went to graduate school. It did carry over for
those who went to medical school, a 2M deferment, since upon
graduation there was great demand for physicians in the military.
Anybody remember if you got a deferment if you were getting a PhD?
Being an engineer didn't get you a deferment. One of my fraternity
brothers graduated with a degree in chemical engineering, one of the
hot degrees at the time (circa 1970), and got drafted a short time
after graduation. He got lucky. One day in basic the instructor
asked if anybody knew any chemistry. One guy said he had it in high
school. Another guy had some chemistry in college. Jim said - I'm a
chemical engineer. That got him a job in the lab at a military
hospital somewhere. Not very close to his degree, but it kept him out
of harms way. I don't think being married got you a draft exemption.
Nobody I knew got that exemption, so I suspect that one didn't exist.
Anybody remember?

Some didn't serve because they were deemed by the
government as unfit to serve.

Another fraternity brother - a likeable 'character', and not
necessarily a peacenik - starved himself till he was skin and bones to
be underweight. He was a walking skeleton, but otherwise seemed
healthy. Poor devil had to give up beer. I don't believe he had to
serve, but I don't know if his weight kept him out.

RWL


I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

On 8/27/2010 9:47 PM, GeoLane at PTD dot NET wrote:

Another fraternity brother - a likeable 'character', and not
necessarily a peacenik - starved himself till he was skin and bones to
be underweight. He was a walking skeleton, but otherwise seemed
healthy. Poor devil had to give up beer. I don't believe he had to
serve, but I don't know if his weight kept him out.

RWL


I think it's about time to set the Way Back for "Alice's Restaurant"
and the Thanksgiving Day Massacree,

and especially the induction physical part!

enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8DtpdXZi0M

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 22:47:00 -0400, GeoLane at PTD dot NET GeoLane at
PTD dot NET wrote:


Military service at that time was still regarded by some as a
patriotic duty, particularly so by those whose fathers served
honorably in WW II and Korea.

That was pretty standard thinking among the people I knew in high
school, and early in the war that sentiment was fairly strong. As the
war went on, the public began to wonder what we were accomplishing.
When people began to distrust what the government was reporting about
the war, the sentiment changed.

You mean what those Democrats were reporting. JFK and LBJ were both
Democrats. It was..as nearly all wars in the past 100 yrs have
been...Democrat cluster****s.

Oh, Gunner, and here we thought you believed the war was a good idea. So did
LBJ, although there's some question about what JFK thought just before he
was killed.

Jeez, you even re-enlisted. What happened, did you wake from your slumber
and realize the whole thing was, as you say, a cluster****? A little late,
weren't you?

--
Ed Huntress

GeoLane at PTD dot NET wrote in message
...

.. I don't think being married got you a draft exemption.
Nobody I knew got that exemption, so I suspect that one didn't exist.
Anybody remember?

RWL


No exemption for marrage, i worked with a guy circa 72-73 that
was married with two kids and 24 years old that got drafted.

Best Regards
Tom.

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 22:47:00 -0400, GeoLane at PTD dot NET GeoLane at
PTD dot NET wrote:


Military service at that time was still regarded by some as a
patriotic duty, particularly so by those whose fathers served
honorably in WW II and Korea.

That was pretty standard thinking among the people I knew in high
school, and early in the war that sentiment was fairly strong. As the
war went on, the public began to wonder what we were accomplishing.
When people began to distrust what the government was reporting about
the war, the sentiment changed.

Some others regarded themselves as
too good to serve and deferments weren't hard to get: get married,
become a professional student or have a critical skill like
engineering.

I"m not so sure about those categories for deferment. The college
student deferment did exist - that was a 2S, but I'm not sure it
carried over if you went to graduate school. It did carry over for
those who went to medical school, a 2M deferment, since upon
graduation there was great demand for physicians in the military.
Anybody remember if you got a deferment if you were getting a PhD?
Being an engineer didn't get you a deferment. One of my fraternity
brothers graduated with a degree in chemical engineering, one of the
hot degrees at the time (circa 1970), and got drafted a short time
after graduation. He got lucky. One day in basic the instructor
asked if anybody knew any chemistry. One guy said he had it in high
school. Another guy had some chemistry in college. Jim said - I'm a
chemical engineer. That got him a job in the lab at a military
hospital somewhere. Not very close to his degree, but it kept him out
of harms way. I don't think being married got you a draft exemption.
Nobody I knew got that exemption, so I suspect that one didn't exist.
Anybody remember?

Some didn't serve because they were deemed by the
government as unfit to serve.

Another fraternity brother - a likeable 'character', and not
necessarily a peacenik - starved himself till he was skin and bones to
be underweight. He was a walking skeleton, but otherwise seemed
healthy. Poor devil had to give up beer. I don't believe he had to
serve, but I don't know if his weight kept him out.

RWL

Apparently things changed somewhere during the time between 1964 and
1970. All of my engineering peers had gotten critical skills
deferments that gave them head starts on me when I hired on for my
first engineering job at Honeywell Aero in 1966 after my service.

I learned considerably more about life, leadership, small teams and
mission in the military than they did during their draft-deferred
head-start time in industry so things worked out well for me in the
long run.

Don't know about deferments for graduate students. I did my graduate
work as a vet while holding down a full-time job and raising a young
family.

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 22:05:06 -0700, "azotic"
wrote:


GeoLane at PTD dot NET wrote in message
.. .

. I don't think being married got you a draft exemption.
Nobody I knew got that exemption, so I suspect that one didn't exist.
Anybody remember?

RWL


No exemption for marrage, i worked with a guy circa 72-73 that
was married with two kids and 24 years old that got drafted.

Best Regards
Tom.
=============
There was indeed a marrage exemption. see
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=132298&page=1
Abolished Aug 26, 1965 by LBJ when the military was becoming
starved for [cheap] manpower for expanding war in Vietnam.

You may also find these sites of interest {warning explicit
content}
http://www.webguild.com/Sentinel/draft_dodgers.htm
http://www.nndb.com/event/806/000140386/

-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 02:36:10 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

You may also find these sites of interest {warning explicit
content}
http://www.webguild.com/Sentinel/draft_dodgers.htm

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7974.html



I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 02:36:10 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

http://www.nndb.com/event/806/000140386/


I rather liked this one from Tom Clancy's data

"In the aftermath of September 11, Clancy appeared on The O'Reilly
Factor, and explained why this disaster had happened:

The general difference between conservatives and liberals is that
liberals like pretty pictures and conservatives like to build bridges
that people can drive across. And conservatives are indeed conservative
because if the bridge falls down then people die, whereas the liberals
figure, we can always build a nice memorial and make people forget it
ever happened and was our fault. They're very good at making people
forget it was their fault. All right?

The CIA was gutted by people on the political left who don't like
intelligence operations... And as a result of that, as an indirect
result of that, we've lost 5,000 citizens last week."

Pretty much says it all.


Gunner


I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 02:36:10 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

http://www.nndb.com/event/806/000140386/


And from a link inside that link....


Bill Clinton
America's First Black President
In a 1998 essay in the New Yorker, author Toni Morrison described
Clinton as "our first black president. Blacker than any actual person
who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime." She went on to
say:

Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent
household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing,
McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas.

This is just another reason that the Republicans absolutely hated
Clinton. "He's getting votes from the minorities just for being poor
white trash fercrissakes!" He drove them utterly ape****. The Republican
leadership of the House could barely conceal their contempt for the man
in their photo ops and press conferences. As far as they were concerned,
Clinton was nothing more than a smarmy hick, the former governor of a
backwater southern state, and corrupt as ****. A guy that even had to
lie about not inhaling. "

Again, nothing I can find fault with.




I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

On Aug 28, 2:00*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

You dodged it completely. The question is, why must respectable Muslims
avoid building in that area? You cite "respect," but you keep dodging about
what is being "respected."

So what is your opinion about the rally Glen Beck is having at the
Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of Martin Luther Kings " I have a
dream " speech which was also at the Lincoln Memorial? Respectful?

Do you think that Glen Beck is being respectful?

Dan

On Aug 27, 11:12*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message

...





On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 22:47:00 -0400, GeoLane at PTD dot NET GeoLane at
PTD dot NET wrote:

Military service at that time was still regarded by some as a
patriotic duty, particularly so by those whose fathers served
honorably in WW II and Korea.

That was pretty standard thinking among the people I knew in high
school, and early in the war that sentiment was fairly strong. *As the
war went on, the public began to wonder what we were accomplishing.
When people began to distrust what the government was reporting about
the war, the sentiment changed.

You mean what those Democrats were reporting. JFK and LBJ were both
Democrats. It was..as nearly all wars in the past 100 yrs have
been...Democrat cluster****s.

Oh, Gunner, and here we thought you believed the war was a good idea. So did
LBJ, although there's some question about what JFK *thought just before he
was killed.

Jeez, you even re-enlisted. What happened, did you wake from your slumber
and realize the whole thing was, as you say, a cluster****? A little late,
weren't you?

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gunner never awoke from his slumber. His entire military service was
but a dream. He may even be sleeping now.

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 02:00:05 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .

The memories of those who were killed at that site 9 years ago.

For all this going around in circles, you have said *not one word* that
explains WHY you think it's disrespectful. You've said you'd consider it
disrespectful if most of the survivors think so, which is a non-answer.
You've said it's an insult, but not what is insulting about it.

I think you're evading the obvious, Don. And the obvious is that many people
distrust all of Islam to the degree that they believe these particular
Muslims are trying to insult and disrespect us because, of course, they're
all Muslims, and all Muslims have murder and hatred in their hearts for
non-Muslims.

As you say, res ipsa loquitur -- "the thing speaks for itself." If you take
insult, you must feel there's something insulting about the act. That fact
speaks for itself. But you have not, and apparently will not, tell us what
you think the insult IS.

Hey, Ed, you're not calling Foreman a weasel, are you? 'Cause even
though it's a fact, he's gonna' take it as disrespectful. And you know
what that means... you'd better not be planning on building anything!
The news story writes itself. :-)

NJ man's garden shed runs into opposition. Critics suspect that the
builder might be up to no good, and demand to know where his funding
is coming from. They insist that they can't understand *why* he would
want to build at his chosen location. A spokesman for NGS (No Garden
Shed) claims that the shed could be bad because shed builders are
suspected by his group to be bad. NGS is adamant - it's up to the
builder to prove to his critics that he and his shed are peaceful.
They suggest a compromise - that he build the shed some number of
miles away, and have formed a committee to decide how many miles is
appropriate. Initial proposals range up to one million miles.
Responding to criticism that the shed builder is being persecuted
without cause, the group's spokesman assured reporters that the group
isn't against garden sheds, *but*...

Wayne

wrote in message
...
On Aug 28, 2:00 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

You dodged it completely. The question is, why must respectable Muslims
avoid building in that area? You cite "respect," but you keep dodging
about
what is being "respected."

So what is your opinion about the rally Glen Beck is having at the
Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of Martin Luther Kings " I have a
dream " speech which was also at the Lincoln Memorial? Respectful?

Exploitative. In his twisted way, he seems to think he's the second coming
of MLK. I expect him to show up in blackface any day now. I don't think the
term "respect" is even on the radar here, although I wouldn't doubt that he
thinks he's respectful.


Do you think that Glen Beck is being respectful?

I think that Glen Beck is as nutty as a fruitcake.

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 02:00:05 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..

The memories of those who were killed at that site 9 years ago.

For all this going around in circles, you have said *not one word* that
explains WHY you think it's disrespectful. You've said you'd consider it
disrespectful if most of the survivors think so, which is a non-answer.
You've said it's an insult, but not what is insulting about it.

I think you're evading the obvious, Don. And the obvious is that many
people
distrust all of Islam to the degree that they believe these particular
Muslims are trying to insult and disrespect us because, of course, they're
all Muslims, and all Muslims have murder and hatred in their hearts for
non-Muslims.

As you say, res ipsa loquitur -- "the thing speaks for itself." If you
take
insult, you must feel there's something insulting about the act. That fact
speaks for itself. But you have not, and apparently will not, tell us what
you think the insult IS.

Hey, Ed, you're not calling Foreman a weasel, are you?

No, I'm not assuming he's intentional about this. It looks more like one of
those blind spots and denials that are characteristic of traditional
conservatives. Of course, liberals have their own set of denials. d8-)

'Cause even
though it's a fact, he's gonna' take it as disrespectful. And you know
what that means... you'd better not be planning on building anything!
The news story writes itself. :-)

NJ man's garden shed runs into opposition. Critics suspect that the
builder might be up to no good, and demand to know where his funding
is coming from. They insist that they can't understand *why* he would
want to build at his chosen location. A spokesman for NGS (No Garden
Shed) claims that the shed could be bad because shed builders are
suspected by his group to be bad. NGS is adamant - it's up to the
builder to prove to his critics that he and his shed are peaceful.
They suggest a compromise - that he build the shed some number of
miles away, and have formed a committee to decide how many miles is
appropriate. Initial proposals range up to one million miles.
Responding to criticism that the shed builder is being persecuted
without cause, the group's spokesman assured reporters that the group
isn't against garden sheds, *but*...


Not bad. g

--
Ed Huntress

Gunner Asch on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 01:34:11 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 02:36:10 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

http://www.nndb.com/event/806/000140386/


And from a link inside that link....


Bill Clinton
America's First Black President
In a 1998 essay in the New Yorker, author Toni Morrison described
Clinton as "our first black president. Blacker than any actual person
who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime." She went on to
say:

Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent
household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing,
McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas.

This is just another reason that the Republicans absolutely hated
Clinton. "He's getting votes from the minorities just for being poor
white trash fercrissakes!" He drove them utterly ape****. The Republican
leadership of the House could barely conceal their contempt for the man
in their photo ops and press conferences. As far as they were concerned,
Clinton was nothing more than a smarmy hick, the former governor of a
backwater southern state, and corrupt as ****. A guy that even had to
lie about not inhaling. "

Again, nothing I can find fault with.

The Clintons perpetuated the unfortunate stereotype that "Corrupt
Southern Politician/Lawyer" was a redundant sentence.

And if you'll notice, it was the Left which considers skin color
to be important.


pyotr
--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
you are a bloody fool, only an ignorant cretin would even ask the
question, forty two, 47, the second door, and how many blonde lawyers
does it take to change a lightbulb.

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 02:00:05 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



The only substantive question is, why not?

I've addressed that: in respect of those who were killed at that site
9 years ago.

You dodged it completely.

What part of the preceding simple declarative sentence do you not
understand?





Neither did the Muslims. The killers were specific individuals from the
Middle East. They claimed the mantle of Islam. Was it justified? I doubt
it,
but I don't know. How do you know?

I haven't seen any widespread denial by the greater Muslem community.
If a billion Muslims were outraged by this heinous act in their name,
they sure were quiet about it.

I actually have, and it's not reassuring. Further, do you honestly
think that the survivors of those who were killed that day are going
to be diligently researching the bona fides of this guy before
deciding if they feel disrespected? Given the above, do you think
they'd feel any better about it if they did?

The witnesses and survivors are divided:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...sweigh-in.html

QED. Read it again, Ed. They're the ones whose opinion really
matters.

It still says the same thing, Don: Some distrust all of Islam, and some
think that it's un-American to do so.

In fact, it says just the opposite. One person interviewed said,

"You can't hold all of any one group accountable for what a minority
of that group does," says Britton, who attends St. Matthew Catholic
Church. "And is intolerance of other religions the lesson we want to
teach our children?"

Another said,
"As a Catholic, if we were building a church in a place that had any
negative emotion in the community," he says, "I would say, 'Don't
build the church.'"


For all this going around in circles, you have said *not one word* that
explains WHY you think it's disrespectful. You've said you'd consider it
disrespectful if most of the survivors think so, which is a non-answer.
You've said it's an insult, but not what is insulting about it.

Thousands were killed by terrorists in the name of Islam. Now that
some terrorist Muslims have destroyed a couple of buildings and killed
a few thousand infidels, some other Muslims want to erect a monument
to Islam on or very near the site. There is strong symbolism in that
act, whether your can see it or not.

In your extreme zeal to claim moral high ground of tolerance,
open-mindedness and be a scathing critic condemning anyone you might
brand as less liberally virtuous than yourself, you are completely
oblivious to the sensibilities of survivors who lost friends and
relatives on 9/11, possibly including accquaintances of your own.

You even read in the Charlotte article that some distrust all of Islam
when in fact there is no such content in that article and one opinion
the exact opposite.

End of the day, the first amendment makes the whole matter moot. They
will build there. A few folks won't like it, but Ed thinks it's a
swell idea. Go, Islam!









As said, I'll defer to the New Yorkers to decide how they feel about
that. Perhaps you should too.

I think you're evading the obvious, Don. And the obvious is that many people
distrust all of Islam to the degree that they believe these particular
Muslims are trying to insult and disrespect us because, of course, they're
all Muslims, and all Muslims have murder and hatred in their hearts for
non-Muslims.

As you say, res ipsa loquitur -- "the thing speaks for itself." If you take
insult, you must feel there's something insulting about the act. That fact
speaks for itself. But you have not, and apparently will not, tell us what
you think the insult IS.

I'm done with this, Don. If you want to continue to duck and dodge, enjoy
your denials. The sufis building Cordoba House have told us why they want to
build it there -- and it's certainly no insult. Either you don't believe
them, or you think there's something inherently insulting about Islam, or
you feel that the terrorists have successfully co-opted all of Islam.
Whatever, you think they should be treated differently, and it has something
to do with their being Muslims. Unless you also object to the Orthodox
Church that's being built there, too.

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 09:39:38 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner Asch on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 01:34:11 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 02:36:10 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

http://www.nndb.com/event/806/000140386/


And from a link inside that link....


Bill Clinton
America's First Black President
In a 1998 essay in the New Yorker, author Toni Morrison described
Clinton as "our first black president. Blacker than any actual person
who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime." She went on to
say:

Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent
household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing,
McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas.

This is just another reason that the Republicans absolutely hated
Clinton. "He's getting votes from the minorities just for being poor
white trash fercrissakes!" He drove them utterly ape****. The Republican
leadership of the House could barely conceal their contempt for the man
in their photo ops and press conferences. As far as they were concerned,
Clinton was nothing more than a smarmy hick, the former governor of a
backwater southern state, and corrupt as ****. A guy that even had to
lie about not inhaling. "

Again, nothing I can find fault with.

The Clintons perpetuated the unfortunate stereotype that "Corrupt
Southern Politician/Lawyer" was a redundant sentence.

And if you'll notice, it was the Left which considers skin color
to be important.

Which is why they elected a white guy (50%) who looked black but really
wasnt (44% Middle Eastern..only 6% black)

Packaging, not content, is a Leftwing trait.




pyotr
--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
you are a bloody fool, only an ignorant cretin would even ask the
question, forty two, 47, the second door, and how many blonde lawyers
does it take to change a lightbulb.

Oh indeed!!

Gunner


I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

On Aug 28, 1:23*pm, Don Foreman wrote:

Thousands were killed by terrorists in the name of Islam. *Now that
some terrorist Muslims have destroyed a couple of buildings and killed
a few thousand infidels, some other Muslims want to erect a monument
to Islam on or very near the site. *There is strong symbolism in that
act, whether your can see it or not.

Sez you.
In this paragraph alone, you have wrongly concluded that the WTC
terrorists killed in the name of Islam. There are many more Muslims in
the US who vocally disagree with what the terrorists did than agree
with it.

The voices in a schizophrenic's head are real and sometimes loud,
according to the schizophrenic, whether you and I can hear them or
not. You see "strong symbolism" and I don't.

Again, I will ask - Have you EVER spent any time in that neighborhood?
Are you familiar with the types of buildings in a two-block radius? Do
you understand that a) for a couple of years, this will be just
another construction site, and b) a couple of months after whatever
grand-opening cermony they have, this will be just another building?

How far away from the WTC is far enough? How long after 9/11 is long
enough?

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 11:01:48 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Aug 28, 1:23*pm, Don Foreman wrote:

Thousands were killed by terrorists in the name of Islam. *Now that
some terrorist Muslims have destroyed a couple of buildings and killed
a few thousand infidels, some other Muslims want to erect a monument
to Islam on or very near the site. *There is strong symbolism in that
act, whether your can see it or not.

Sez you.
In this paragraph alone, you have wrongly concluded that the WTC
terrorists killed in the name of Islam.

See definition and acts of Al Qaeda.

There are many more Muslims in
the US who vocally disagree with what the terrorists did than agree
with it.

If that's so, why were they not cited or mentioned here?

The voices in a schizophrenic's head are real and sometimes loud,
according to the schizophrenic, whether you and I can hear them or
not. You see "strong symbolism" and I don't.

And Ed doesn't either. OK. What's relevant should be how the
affected people in Manhattan feel.

Again, I will ask - Have you EVER spent any time in that neighborhood?

I've been there, many years ago, just passing through as a visitor or
tourist. So no, no significant time at all.

Are you familiar with the types of buildings in a two-block radius?

I know what they look like, haven't been in them.

Do you understand that a) for a couple of years, this will be just
another construction site, and b) a couple of months after whatever
grand-opening cermony they have, this will be just another building?

Is the ground where the towers fell just another bit of Manhattan real
estate now? Honest question: perhaps to those who live there it is.

How far away from the WTC is far enough? How long after 9/11 is long
enough?

Good questions. With the density of and pace of life in Manhattan,
maybe 100 yards and two weeks are enough. Again, I defer to those who
live there.

On Aug 28, 3:00*pm, Don Foreman wrote:
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 11:01:48 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck

wrote:
On Aug 28, 1:23*pm, Don Foreman wrote:

Thousands were killed by terrorists in the name of Islam. *Now that
some terrorist Muslims have destroyed a couple of buildings and killed
a few thousand infidels, some other Muslims want to erect a monument
to Islam on or very near the site. *There is strong symbolism in that
act, whether your can see it or not.

Sez you.
In this paragraph alone, you have wrongly concluded that the WTC
terrorists killed in the name of Islam.

See definition and acts of Al Qaeda.

There are many more Muslims in
the US who vocally disagree with what the terrorists did than agree
with it.

If that's so, why were they not cited or mentioned here? *

They have been over and over. I'm not going to do it again. It's not
my job.

The voices in a schizophrenic's head are real and sometimes loud,
according to the schizophrenic, whether you and I can hear them or
not. You see "strong symbolism" and I don't.

And Ed doesn't either. *OK. What's *relevant should be how the
affected people in Manhattan feel.

I don't doubt that there are some who are against the building. Of the
people I talk to, 100% are OK with it. Most of the rest, I suspect,
simply don't care, except as to how it affects the traffic on their
commute.

However, what THEY think is not really relevant to this discussion
either. Of coutse they, and you and I are entitled to their opinions,
but religious freedom is the law of THIS country. it is not the law of
Suadi Arabia or most of its neighbors. If the people of Manhattan
don't like the law, they should elect representatives who will work to
change it. Those, Don, are the rules.

Again, I will ask - Have you EVER spent any time in that neighborhood?

I've been there, many years ago, just passing through as a visitor or
tourist. *So no, no significant time at all.

Are you familiar with the types of buildings in a two-block radius?

I know what they look like, haven't been in them.

Take a look at Google Maps' Street View - you'll see people going
about their business on what appears to be a nice day in NY. You'll
see a construction site. You'll see cars. Lots of them. I would guess
that a round trip from the nearest corner of the WTC site to the
mosque location and back would probably be a half-hour or more drive.


Do you understand that a) for a couple of years, this will be just
another construction site, and b) a couple of months after whatever
grand-opening cermony they have, this will be just another building?

Is the ground where the towers fell just another bit of Manhattan real
estate now? *Honest question: perhaps to those who live there it is. *

To the people who sit in traffic in that area, it's just another
construction site. To others, in the construction trades and
professions, its a goldmine, which is to say, its just another rather
huge construction site. No fewer than three of my clients are making
very big bucks on this job. Further, I can tell you from personal
experience that at least two large telecom companies (one starts with
AT&T and the other one rhymes with Verizon) cashed in huge on the
federal money that was being thrown around in the months following
9/11. Someday, someone may want to explain how authorizing unlimited
overtime for installation of residential DSL equipment in Scarsdale (a
very wealthy community 30 miles north of the WTC) had anything at all
to do with rebuilding the communications infrastructure in lower
Manhattan.

I don't know if it ever hits the national news, but every now and
then, a construction job in Manhattan will uncover something of
archeological or social relevance. One day it's an Indian burial
ground, the next, an ancient (by US standards) church. The most recent
I heard of was an 18th (If I remember correctly) century ocean-going
boat, sunk for landfill. Every one of these finds halts construction
while the various scholarly institutions do their thing, and every one
of them brings honking horns and ****ed off cab drivers, not all of
whom (despite the stereotype) are Muslim.

How far away from the WTC is far enough? *How long after 9/11 is long
enough? *

Good questions. *With the density of and pace of life in Manhattan,
maybe 100 yards and two weeks are enough. *Again, I defer to those who
live there.

Well, then, you should defer. Which you have not done here, so far.

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 14:41:54 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:



If that's so, why were they not cited or mentioned here? *

They have been over and over. I'm not going to do it again. It's not
my job.

Uh huh.


And Ed doesn't either. *OK. What's *relevant should be how the
affected people in Manhattan feel.



However, what THEY think is not really relevant to this discussion
either. Of coutse they, and you and I are entitled to their opinions,
but religious freedom is the law of THIS country. it is not the law of
Suadi Arabia or most of its neighbors. If the people of Manhattan
don't like the law, they should elect representatives who will work to
change it. Those, Don, are the rules.

I've stipulated that several times. Don't you read any of the thread
before launching your posts? I know, not your job.

Again, I will ask - Have you EVER spent any time in that neighborhood?

I've been there, many years ago, just passing through as a visitor or
tourist. *So no, no significant time at all.

Are you familiar with the types of buildings in a two-block radius?

I know what they look like, haven't been in them.

Take a look at Google Maps' Street View - you'll see people going
about their business on what appears to be a nice day in NY. You'll
see a construction site. You'll see cars. Lots of them. I would guess
that a round trip from the nearest corner of the WTC site to the
mosque location and back would probably be a half-hour or more drive.

Half an hour to drive 2 blocks and back?

Do you understand that a) for a couple of years, this will be just
another construction site, and b) a couple of months after whatever
grand-opening cermony they have, this will be just another building?

Life lurches on in the big city, eh? Bidness as usual. I don't think
I'd like living there.

Is the ground where the towers fell just another bit of Manhattan real
estate now? *Honest question: perhaps to those who live there it is. *

To the people who sit in traffic in that area, it's just another
construction site. To others, in the construction trades and
professions, its a goldmine, which is to say, its just another rather
huge construction site. No fewer than three of my clients are making
very big bucks on this job. Further, I can tell you from personal
experience that at least two large telecom companies (one starts with
AT&T and the other one rhymes with Verizon) cashed in huge on the
federal money that was being thrown around in the months following
9/11. Someday, someone may want to explain how authorizing unlimited
overtime for installation of residential DSL equipment in Scarsdale (a
very wealthy community 30 miles north of the WTC) had anything at all
to do with rebuilding the communications infrastructure in lower
Manhattan.

I don't know if it ever hits the national news, but every now and
then, a construction job in Manhattan will uncover something of
archeological or social relevance. One day it's an Indian burial
ground, the next, an ancient (by US standards) church. The most recent
I heard of was an 18th (If I remember correctly) century ocean-going
boat, sunk for landfill. Every one of these finds halts construction
while the various scholarly institutions do their thing, and every one
of them brings honking horns and ****ed off cab drivers, not all of
whom (despite the stereotype) are Muslim.

How far away from the WTC is far enough? *How long after 9/11 is long
enough? *

Good questions. *With the density of and pace of life in Manhattan,
maybe 100 yards and two weeks are enough. *Again, I defer to those who
live there.

Well, then, you should defer. Which you have not done here, so far.

Wrong. But you'd have to read to know that.

8/28/2010, 12:23 PM this thread
"As said, I'll defer to the New Yorkers to decide how they feel about
that. Perhaps you should too."
8/28/2010 2:00 PM this thread and repeated above in your post:
"And Ed doesn't either. OK. What's relevant should be how the
affected people in Manhattan feel."

On Aug 28, 11:31*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

So what is your opinion about the rally Glen Beck is having at the
Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of Martin Luther Kings *" I have a
dream " speech which was also at the Lincoln Memorial? * Respectful?

Exploitative. In his twisted way, he seems to think he's the second coming
of MLK. I expect him to show up in blackface any day now. I don't think the
term "respect" is even on the radar here, although I wouldn't doubt that he
thinks he's respectful.



Do you think that Glen Beck is being respectful?

I think that Glen Beck is as nutty as a fruitcake.

--
Ed Huntress

I assume that from you answer that you think that Glen Becks rally is
respectful.


Dan

wrote in message
...
On Aug 28, 11:31 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

So what is your opinion about the rally Glen Beck is having at the
Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of Martin Luther Kings " I have a
dream " speech which was also at the Lincoln Memorial? Respectful?

Exploitative. In his twisted way, he seems to think he's the second coming
of MLK. I expect him to show up in blackface any day now. I don't think
the
term "respect" is even on the radar here, although I wouldn't doubt that
he
thinks he's respectful.



Do you think that Glen Beck is being respectful?

I think that Glen Beck is as nutty as a fruitcake.

--
Ed Huntress

I assume that from you answer that you think that Glen Becks rally is
respectful.


Dan

I have no idea, Dan. I haven't paid much attention to it.

--
Ed Huntress

On 8/28/2010 7:02 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
Do you think that Glen Beck is being respectful?

I think that Glen Beck is as nutty as a fruitcake.

--
Ed Huntress

I assume that from you answer that you think that Glen Becks rally is
respectful.


Dan

I have no idea, Dan. I haven't paid much attention to it.



The news sites say "tens of thousands".

For every one that is there, there are a hundred that would like to be.


But if he starts being a threat to the powers that be, they'll shoot him
dead as Martin Luther King.



--

Richard Lamb

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:27:25 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 02:00:05 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Hey, Ed, you're not calling Foreman a weasel, are you?

No, I'm not assuming he's intentional about this. It looks more like one of
those blind spots and denials that are characteristic of traditional
conservatives.

Let's see... he started by implying that he wasn't being
disrespectful, and was only joking. Then for some bizarre reason he
decided it would help his case to proclaim that he considers all
Muslims his enemy, and guilty until *they* prove to his satisfaction
that they're innocent, as if such a thing were possible. Much like the
birthers, he continues to ignore every fact, and every logical
question put to him if they hurt his case. That spells willful weasel
to me.

Here's a prediction you can take to the bank - the only thing that
will make Foreman happy is if he reads that the project costs have
been run up, or that making peaceful use of the center has become
difficult. And if for example, rogue construction workers sabotage the
construction etc, he'll call that "fieldcraft".

I wish he could live the predictable consequences of his fear
mongering. Something along the lines of what that community center is
likely to face as a result of the ginned-up controversy. They may need
bodyguards for their staff, and anti-terrorist features added to the
construction. No matter how they proceed, they're going to be paying a
high price for the free speech rights of the ignorant.

Wayne

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:46:23 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Aug 28, 11:31*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

So what is your opinion about the rally Glen Beck is having at the
Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of Martin Luther Kings *" I have a
dream " speech which was also at the Lincoln Memorial? * Respectful?

Exploitative. In his twisted way, he seems to think he's the second coming
of MLK. I expect him to show up in blackface any day now. I don't think the
term "respect" is even on the radar here, although I wouldn't doubt that he
thinks he's respectful.



Do you think that Glen Beck is being respectful?

I think that Glen Beck is as nutty as a fruitcake.

--
Ed Huntress

I assume that from you answer that you think that Glen Becks rally is
respectful.


Dan

Odd then...if he has some problems with "blackface"..that he was so
respectful of our first Black President, Bill Clinton.

Gunner



I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 19:43:06 -0500, CaveLamb
wrote:

On 8/28/2010 7:02 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
Do you think that Glen Beck is being respectful?

I think that Glen Beck is as nutty as a fruitcake.

--
Ed Huntress

I assume that from you answer that you think that Glen Becks rally is
respectful.


Dan

I have no idea, Dan. I haven't paid much attention to it.



The news sites say "tens of thousands".

For every one that is there, there are a hundred that would like to be.


But if he starts being a threat to the powers that be, they'll shoot him
dead as Martin Luther King.

And the Great Cull will start early.

Count on it.

Gunner


I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:30:21 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 19:43:06 -0500, CaveLamb
wrote:

On 8/28/2010 7:02 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
Do you think that Glen Beck is being respectful?

I think that Glen Beck is as nutty as a fruitcake.

--
Ed Huntress

I assume that from you answer that you think that Glen Becks rally is
respectful.


Dan

I have no idea, Dan. I haven't paid much attention to it.



The news sites say "tens of thousands".

For every one that is there, there are a hundred that would like to be.


But if he starts being a threat to the powers that be, they'll shoot him
dead as Martin Luther King.

And the Great Cull will start early.

Count on it.

Is it here yet?

Is it here yet?

Is it here yet?

Is it here yet?

Is it here yet?

Is it here yet?

Is it here yet?

Is it here yet?

Is it here yet?

No? sigh

--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do,
we shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we
cannot do. -- Samuel Butler

Gunner,

I think you've got it mixed up a bit in your mind.

It's the "Great Pumpkin" that you are waiting for,
not the "Great Purge".

The Great Purge was in 1932. It's long gone.

The Stalin government killed everybody who was a
threat to the government.

Better stick with the Great Pumpkin for now.

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:53:02 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:30:21 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 19:43:06 -0500, CaveLamb
wrote:

On 8/28/2010 7:02 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
Do you think that Glen Beck is being respectful?

I think that Glen Beck is as nutty as a fruitcake.

--
Ed Huntress

I assume that from you answer that you think that Glen Becks rally is
respectful.


Dan

I have no idea, Dan. I haven't paid much attention to it.



The news sites say "tens of thousands".

For every one that is there, there are a hundred that would like to be.


But if he starts being a threat to the powers that be, they'll shoot him
dead as Martin Luther King.

And the Great Cull will start early.

Count on it.

Is it here yet?

Is it here yet?

Is it here yet?

Is it here yet?

Is it here yet?

Is it here yet?

Is it here yet?

Is it here yet?

Is it here yet?

No? sigh

Larry..just keep your preps up, your weapons cleaned/oiled and in proper
functioning condition and improve your skill sets.

It is coming. Take advantage of the training time before it gets here.


Gunner


I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 21:21:41 -0500, CaveLamb
wrote:

Gunner,

I think you've got it mixed up a bit in your mind.

It's the "Great Pumpkin" that you are waiting for,
not the "Great Purge".

The Great Purge was in 1932. It's long gone.

The Stalin government killed everybody who was a
threat to the government.

Better stick with the Great Pumpkin for now.

Laugh all you want.

What is the big difference between Russia and the US?

In the US..the People are armed..and the Checas are not going to be able
to take those guns away.

But hey..its your choice what to believe. You can sail away to Cuba
whenever you wish.


Gunner






I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

On 8/28/2010 9:38 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 21:21:41 -0500,
wrote:

Gunner,

I think you've got it mixed up a bit in your mind.

It's the "Great Pumpkin" that you are waiting for,
not the "Great Purge".

The Great Purge was in 1932. It's long gone.

The Stalin government killed everybody who was a
threat to the government.

Better stick with the Great Pumpkin for now.

Laugh all you want.

What is the big difference between Russia and the US?

In the US..the People are armed..and the Checas are not going to be able
to take those guns away.

But hey..its your choice what to believe. You can sail away to Cuba
whenever you wish.


Gunner


It they ever open it up for tourism, then yeah!

Hopefully before McDonalds shows up and ruins the place.

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 21:47:11 -0500, CaveLamb
wrote:

On 8/28/2010 9:38 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 21:21:41 -0500,
wrote:

Gunner,

I think you've got it mixed up a bit in your mind.

It's the "Great Pumpkin" that you are waiting for,
not the "Great Purge".

The Great Purge was in 1932. It's long gone.

The Stalin government killed everybody who was a
threat to the government.

Better stick with the Great Pumpkin for now.

Laugh all you want.

What is the big difference between Russia and the US?

In the US..the People are armed..and the Checas are not going to be able
to take those guns away.

But hey..its your choice what to believe. You can sail away to Cuba
whenever you wish.


Gunner


It they ever open it up for tourism, then yeah!

Hopefully before McDonalds shows up and ruins the place.

What..the Government isnt going to prevent you from sailing anyplace
Bad?

Snicker

I rather suspect you dont WANT to know whats on the horizon.

I hope the sudden change wont interupt your morning bathroom schedule
when it suddenly happens.

Me..Ill simply prop my feet up on the front porch rail, uncase the banjo
and turn on the radio.

Gunner


I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 17:51:17 -0700, wrote:

They may need bodyguards for their staff, and anti-terrorist features added to the
construction. No matter how they proceed, they're going to be paying a
high price for the free speech rights of the ignorant.

"Ignorant" here obviously defined as anyone with whom you disagree.

The New Jersey contingent, Rangersuck and Ed, asserts otherwise. They
assert that those affected won't care, life lurches on in Manhattan.
They live a lot closer to Manhattan than I do and far closer than you
do. If the survivors of the atrocity really don't care then I am
content to rest my case ahd shut the hell up.

You obviously think there might be a few that do care. You label them
as ignorant. Tawk about a model of tolerance!

Free speech is not free; it does have a price that someone pays or has
paid to defend. There's a bit of justice when those who invoke free
speech to express things that upset others might need to have paid or
expect to pay some dues.

Nonentity trolls like you that hide behind anonymity to avoid
accountability are parasite freeriders of the constitution, not to be
taken seriously. Unsigned usenet rockets from behind deep cover,
however garden shed clever, are cowardly noise. The very fact that
they are done anonymously admits that they are not cogent comment
worthy of consideration by intelligent responsible readers.

Gotta give you credit as an inspired usenet troll and poor lonesome
isolated anthrophobic pathetic soul. You did hook me into a response
here, congratulations and enjoy the fleeting usenet attention. Hugs
and pax vobiscum. Feel free to call me names in response. Weasel
seems to be a fave.

Don "the weasel" Foreman
Fridley MN when we're not near Starbuck, MN. We're easy to find in
both locations. We're good neighbors and we have wonderful neighbors.