Not replying to anyone in particular, but this thread started out as a
pretty funny joke, hopefully funny without having to subscribe to a
particular ideology. Lighten up folks, humour has a way of making
sense of situations we cant understand, and cant resolve. And maybe if
we were all prepared to laugh a bit about our own hobby horses, and
pet prejudices, then maybe we could work out some way through this
horrible maze we all seem to be trapped in, where people die in the
name of some crazy belief system. American troops, Australian troops,
Afghan troops, and the Taliban - guys just doing the job their sent
to, with conviction, and is it bloody well worth the deaths, the
widows, the fatherless children?

My 2 cents worth, with horrible grammar. Get real folks, otherwise
this crap will go on for generations to come.

Andrew VK3BFA.

"CaveLamb" wrote in message
m...
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.

It sounded like the idea is that this group wants to "take back the
country." Yes, if they try to usurp the elected government, there's a good
chance they will be shot.

--
Ed Huntress

"Andrew VK3BFA" wrote in message
...
Not replying to anyone in particular, but this thread started out as a
pretty funny joke, hopefully funny without having to subscribe to a
particular ideology. Lighten up folks, humour has a way of making
sense of situations we cant understand, and cant resolve. And maybe if
we were all prepared to laugh a bit about our own hobby horses, and
pet prejudices, then maybe we could work out some way through this
horrible maze we all seem to be trapped in, where people die in the
name of some crazy belief system. American troops, Australian troops,
Afghan troops, and the Taliban - guys just doing the job their sent
to, with conviction, and is it bloody well worth the deaths, the
widows, the fatherless children?

My 2 cents worth, with horrible grammar. Get real folks, otherwise
this crap will go on for generations to come.

Andrew VK3BFA.

And how far back do you have to go to a time before there were such absurd
wars, Andrew?

I agree with your sentiments, but human history is not encouraging that it
will be different in years to come.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 01:56:40 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

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.

In theory willful ignorance is curable. People who wallow in it
deserve ridicule.

The New Jersey contingent, Rangersuck and Ed, asserts otherwise. They
assert that those affected won't care, life lurches on in Manhattan.

You've oversimplified their points, as has become your lame habit.

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.

The hell you will. You couldn't help but know about survivors and
families who vehemently disagree with you.

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/sept...e-20100825-apx

"I lost a 23-year-old son, a paramedic who gave his life saving
Americans and their values," Talat Hamdani said, and supporting the
Islamic center and mosque "has nothing to do with religion. It has to
do with standing up for our human rights, including freedom of
religion."

http://blog.nj.com/njv_bob_braun/201...de_center.html

“What is happening to this country," asks Robert McIlvaine, whose son
and namesake was killed that day. “It is so sad that people would use
a simple issue of religious tolerance to spew hate and anger and
create fear.”

http://www.cbs6albany.com/articles/l...tatum-met.html

"I think it's important not to give into the hysteria. We do have
religious freedom. I know the wounds are still very open, me myslef
included but you have to look at the big picture. You can't practice
these freedoms only when it suits us. You have to practice them all
along" says Tatum."

Those folks demonstrated more wisdom in a single paragraph each than
you could muster if you spent the rest of your life writing on this
subject.

Oh wait, I bet you'll say that they're only a minority, and that
survivors and victims' families should all have a vote on the issue.
Heck, maybe we could relitigate a few other 200+ year-old principles
as well, eh?

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

I will always be intolerant of ignorance. I can understand it coming
from some. Say, people who are working so hard that they don't have
time to be enlightened. But from a retired old fart who hopes to prove
that he's intelligent, and who has time to cherry-pick crap to support
his indefensible position? Forget it. Readers here cut you way more
slack than you deserved. Besides, any notion that a cull volunteer
should be lecturing on tolerance is beyond ludicrous. Or did you fail
to notice that the cull "list" is reported by your friend to contain
names of pretty much everyone who makes fun of him?

Free speech is not free; it does have a price that someone pays

Unfortunately you're not the one paying it in this case. Instead
you're predictably running up the costs for others. I've got news for
you - you'll never be happy regardless. You'll remain irrationally
fearful and insulted until you bite the dirt. Why? Because you work at
it.

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.

As I predicted, you're gloating over your handiwork. You may yet get
to pay though. Thanks to folks like you, the stock of Gingrich and
Palin et al is probably up. That alone ought to have made you shut the
hell up if only you gave a crap.

Gotta give you credit as an inspired usenet troll and poor lonesome
isolated anthrophobic pathetic soul. You did hook me into a response
here,

The only thing you've been "hooked" into is writing self-destructive
responses to valid criticism and ridicule.

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.

In your mind you may be a great citizen. But in reality you've made a
conscious and diligent effort here to fan the flames of "hysteria".
Note that's a quote from a victim's family member. Or is he a troll as
well?

Wayne

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
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

When did Clinton ever wear blackface, Gunner?

You read some writer's metaphorical idea, and suddenly it fills in a few of
the available memory cells, adding up the tropes and the aphorisms you've
borrowed from others until you sound like a tutti-frutti parrot.

--
Ed Huntress

On Aug 28, 7:23*pm, Don Foreman wrote:
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.

You may have stiputlated, but then you later add commentary along the
lines of (this is not a direct quote because I don't fee like looking
for it, but it is pretty close), "What would happen if you wanted to
build a Christian church in Mecca?"


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? *

I invite you to come and try it some afternoon. I am NOT exagerating.
Taxis in New York charge by distance AND time.


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. *


I doubt you would. I KNOW I wouldn't - I'm about three miles away from
the city.


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

Yes you wrote all of that. I'll believe that you meant it when you
stop commenting on the subject. And the fact is that the people of NY
have nothing to say about it either, unless a zoning law is violated.
As I said earlier, the recourse that offended people have is to elect
new governmental representatives who can work to change the offensive
laws.

wrote in message
...
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.

So far, correct. Don and many others have associated all Muslims with the
terrorists, based on the terrorists' claims, but not on any knowledge about
the people behind the project. Otherwise, there would be no reason to
consider Cordoba House an insult. Don dances all around it, but that's the
fact.

This is the blindness that I was talking about. As I said, I'm as
distrustful as most people, because I often don't trust what I don't know,
and I don't know what the "real" Islam is about -- as it's practiced and
believed today, not as it's claimed in ancient texts. But there are
principles involved that trump my own emotions, or those of others.

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.

I think the issue is that there aren't a lot of facts that most of us know
about what Muslims believe. I grant that he's correct about that. The whole
contention is built upon a shortage of facts.

Regarding our principles and our laws, though, the facts are a lot clearer.
But Don has acknowledged that they have a right to build Cordoba House
there. He just doesn't want them to, because he sees it as an insult.
Personally, I'm a lot more upset about giving the Orthodox Church $20
million of taxpayer money to rebuild their own church near the site. They
must not believe in God's will. g

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 Sun, 29 Aug 2010 11:30:38 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .

I think the issue is that there aren't a lot of facts that most of us know
about what Muslims believe.

We have sufficient facts in this case.

1. There is no proof that these folks mean any harm, or that they
intended any insult.

2. It's wrong to blame an entire group for actions of rogue members.

3. It's wrong to assume guilt or demand proof of innocence without
cause.

4. Ignoring 1, 2, and 3 perpetuates ignorance and religious strife for
no valid reason.

I'm a lot more upset about giving the Orthodox Church $20
million of taxpayer money to rebuild their own church near the site. They
must not believe in God's will. g

The community center may get public money as well. If it were up to me
I'd only loan the money if both groups agreed to share the same
building.

Wayne

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 11:30:38 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..

I think the issue is that there aren't a lot of facts that most of us know
about what Muslims believe.

We have sufficient facts in this case.

1. There is no proof that these folks mean any harm, or that they
intended any insult.

2. It's wrong to blame an entire group for actions of rogue members.

3. It's wrong to assume guilt or demand proof of innocence without
cause.

4. Ignoring 1, 2, and 3 perpetuates ignorance and religious strife for
no valid reason.

Those are all principles, Wayne. I agree with them, and will stand behind
them, but I'd like to know a lot more.


I'm a lot more upset about giving the Orthodox Church $20
million of taxpayer money to rebuild their own church near the site. They
must not believe in God's will. g

The community center may get public money as well. If it were up to me
I'd only loan the money if both groups agreed to share the same
building.

Wayne

I would not loan religious groups money for anything other than projects
with a clear social benefit. Anything to do with religious belief itself is
none of the government's business.

--
Ed Huntress

I"m not so sure about those categories for deferment.
....snip....
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.


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 didn't realize the draft rules had changed. Someone else pointed to
a web site which cited the date of the changes. I was in the latter
half of the Viet Nam years so my experiences were a little different
than yours. I was in the first group that had the birth date lottery.
I had a pretty good number as I recall - something like 181.

I had hoped that the group could compose a summary of what the draft
regulations were back then based on first hand experience like yours
and mine, but it's degenerated into more political name calling.

RWL

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:34:52 -0400, GeoLane at PTD dot NET GeoLane at
PTD dot NET wrote:


I"m not so sure about those categories for deferment.
....snip....
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.


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 didn't realize the draft rules had changed. Someone else pointed to
a web site which cited the date of the changes. I was in the latter
half of the Viet Nam years so my experiences were a little different
than yours. I was in the first group that had the birth date lottery.
I had a pretty good number as I recall - something like 181.

I had hoped that the group could compose a summary of what the draft
regulations were back then based on first hand experience like yours
and mine, but it's degenerated into more political name calling.

RWL

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/op...9pressler.html


On a side note..the Draft ended in 1973. However....it had slowed down
to a trickle by January 1971 and most of those were support troops, not
infantry. The vast majority of those serving in Vietnam after January
71..were volunteers.

The number of druggies, and the number of fraggings declined sharply
after the drafties went home and the volunteers were running the show.

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 Sun, 29 Aug 2010 12:07:34 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 11:30:38 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
...

I think the issue is that there aren't a lot of facts that most of us know
about what Muslims believe.

We have sufficient facts in this case.

1. There is no proof that these folks mean any harm, or that they
intended any insult.

2. It's wrong to blame an entire group for actions of rogue members.

3. It's wrong to assume guilt or demand proof of innocence without
cause.

4. Ignoring 1, 2, and 3 perpetuates ignorance and religious strife for
no valid reason.

Those are all principles, Wayne. I agree with them, and will stand behind
them, but I'd like to know a lot more.

You could think of yourself as a trial judge, strictly bound by law
and reason. No matter how much evidence is presented, you might still
want to learn more. But at some point you make a decision based on
what you do know. In this case, the sensible decision is so easy to
make that it's truly frightening how many people think it should go
any other way. For the antis, at least the ones who aren't simply
racists etc, it boils down to "I feel insulted, therefore someone
*must* have insulted me". No amount of education is likely to cure
that. For example, a friend used to complain bitterly whenever he saw
someone wearing a hat in a restaurant. There was no telling him
anything. He'd bitch out loud, and the only thing that kept him from
coming to blows were cooler heads refusing to be drawn into his
stupidity. Likewise, note how many different people have told Don that
it makes no sense to declare people guilty based on association or his
feelings. Yet he continues to do both enthusiastically and
incorrigibly.

I'm a lot more upset about giving the Orthodox Church $20
million of taxpayer money to rebuild their own church near the site. They
must not believe in God's will. g

The community center may get public money as well. If it were up to me
I'd only loan the money if both groups agreed to share the same
building.

Wayne

I would not loan religious groups money for anything other than projects
with a clear social benefit.

If I understand it correctly, the loans are only for the community
center portions. The religious portions don't qualify. In principle
it's fair. But these facilities are obviously cliques. Outsiders then
feel entitled to their own clique facility... sigh Maybe those loans
should be stopped altogether. But then the folks who seek them would
feel insulted. :-) Here's how that would go:

"No government involvement in religion means *NO* involvement"

"We're not asking you to be involved, just to loan us money and give
us tax breaks, and if you don't go along then we'll vote in somebody
who will"

Anything to do with religious belief itself is
none of the government's business.

If only. Religions always seem to be after more power and influence,
and they've got centuries of experience shamelessly creating and
exploiting loopholes.
http://blog.au.org/2009/05/05/huntin...lytizing-plan/
http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2010/08/2...proselytizing/
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/articl...izing/19357441
http://www.secular.org/issues/chaplains


Wayne

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 08:10:52 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:



Yes you wrote all of that. I'll believe that you meant it when you
stop commenting on the subject. And the fact is that the people of NY
have nothing to say about it either, unless a zoning law is violated.
As I said earlier, the recourse that offended people have is to elect
new governmental representatives who can work to change the offensive
laws.

The law, including the 1st amendment, is not offensive.
What may be offensive to some is the behavior of a group proceeding in
a completely legal but possibly insensitive and callous manner.

If anyone is offended, they'll probably have no recourse other than to
bitch about it -- and if they do that they'll probably get a ****storm
of outraged reaction from self-righteous pedagogues of political
correctitude.

Or, they might hope that the construction crew hits an old Indian
sacred site that would might cause a hold on construction for a decade
or two -- first amendment, you know. They were there first!

A similar situation existed in Royal Oak, MI where an art festival was
held. Some people wanted the festival to be marked off limits for
openly-carried firearms because another group made it clear that they
would attend the festival openly carrying guns.

http://www.macombdaily.com/articles/...8937579126.txt
The second amendment and the laws of the State of Michigan allow open
carry there, with no permit necessary -- but what an asshole thing to
do at an art festival where some attendees would find this practice
distasteful, inappropriate and possibly even frightening. Concealed
carry wouldn't upset anyone but some or most of the oafs who wanted
to carry openly probably don't have, and perhaps can't get, CCW
permits.

The City of Royal Oak refused to post such a ban because it might
present risk of the cost of litigation. So the gunslingers' rights
were preserved, and screw any gentle timorous attendees of this
festival that can't take a joke.

This probably wouldn't have been an issue in Arizona or Texas, but
Royal Oak, MI is geographically and culturally a long ways from both.

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 16:27:55 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 08:10:52 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:



Yes you wrote all of that. I'll believe that you meant it when you
stop commenting on the subject. And the fact is that the people of NY
have nothing to say about it either, unless a zoning law is violated.
As I said earlier, the recourse that offended people have is to elect
new governmental representatives who can work to change the offensive
laws.

The law, including the 1st amendment, is not offensive.

Previously you said that you "may or may not" agree with it. Now
you're implying that you agree, but as usual, not saying clearly. Do
you agree with the 1st or not? Can you muster the sincerity to answer
such a simple question without any more weaseling?

What may be offensive

Why do you now say "may"? Previously you wrote "New Yorkers think a
block and a half is too damned close".

to some is the behavior of a group proceeding in
a completely legal but possibly insensitive and callous manner.

Why do you now say "possibly"? Previously you accused them of "an
overtly contemptuous gesture like a raised middle finger, like
spitting on American graves, ****ing on their tombstones and defying
us to object". And you claimed that the building is designed to
"symbolically mark and claim the spoils". Then you judged the builders
as being "not merely a group of faithful muslims seeking a place to
peacefully worship in a land of religious freedom". Do you need a link
for your own quotes?

If anyone is offended, they'll probably have no recourse other than to
bitch about it --

"If" they're offended? Are you sending us code that your opinion has
changed?

and if they do

There's no "if" about it. You and others have advocated a sort of
tiered 1st Amendment - complete freedom for those you and Newt deem
worthy, but some kind of second-class freedom for others.

that they'll probably get a ****storm
of outraged reaction from self-righteous pedagogues of political
correctitude.

Ah, just PC running amuck, eh? Those *******s!

Or, they might hope that the construction crew hits an old Indian
sacred site that would might cause a hold on construction for a decade
or two -- first amendment, you know. They were there first!

You know, when I predicted that their suffering would make you happy,
in a moment of hopefulness I figured that you might be smart enough to
keep such feelings to yourself. Notice that I said "might".

A similar situation existed in Royal Oak, MI where an art festival was
held. Some people wanted the festival to be marked off limits for
openly-carried firearms

LOL Is there anything that you can't morph into gun talk?

So the gunslingers' rights
were preserved, and screw any gentle timorous attendees of this
festival that can't take a joke.

Oh sure, it's OK for *you* to say "screw you", but now that you
imagine that others are doing that to you, it's time to brand them the
"enemy", right?

"For Christ's sake, listen to yourself" - Ed Huntress

Wayne

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 12:07:34 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 11:30:38 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...

I think the issue is that there aren't a lot of facts that most of us
know
about what Muslims believe.

We have sufficient facts in this case.

1. There is no proof that these folks mean any harm, or that they
intended any insult.

2. It's wrong to blame an entire group for actions of rogue members.

3. It's wrong to assume guilt or demand proof of innocence without
cause.

4. Ignoring 1, 2, and 3 perpetuates ignorance and religious strife for
no valid reason.

Those are all principles, Wayne. I agree with them, and will stand behind
them, but I'd like to know a lot more.

You could think of yourself as a trial judge, strictly bound by law
and reason. No matter how much evidence is presented, you might still
want to learn more. But at some point you make a decision based on
what you do know. In this case, the sensible decision is so easy to
make that it's truly frightening how many people think it should go
any other way. For the antis, at least the ones who aren't simply
racists etc, it boils down to "I feel insulted, therefore someone
*must* have insulted me".

FWIW, this is the best discussion of the subject that I've seen in the
press. It doesn't change the principles, but it makes a good case for why
Americans are so distrustful of Islam. It's a combination of several
mutually reinforcing things, according to the article, which I find to be
perceptive:

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/08/29...e-hostile.html

No amount of education is likely to cure
that.

In my opinion, that's the whole story. That's ideological departure from the
center. As recent studies have shown, once one stops consciously trying to
understand both sides, and takes a hard-nosed posture on some contentious
subject, contrary facts only harden their positions.

For example, a friend used to complain bitterly whenever he saw
someone wearing a hat in a restaurant. There was no telling him
anything. He'd bitch out loud, and the only thing that kept him from
coming to blows were cooler heads refusing to be drawn into his
stupidity. Likewise, note how many different people have told Don that
it makes no sense to declare people guilty based on association or his
feelings. Yet he continues to do both enthusiastically and
incorrigibly.

If I really cared, I wouldn't say this, but the fact is that you give
conservatives much more credit than I do. That's why you get so angry, and I
usually just get frustrated. FWIW, I give no more credit to liberals. I get
angry mostly over matters of personal character, not political views.

That doesn't mean I can't be friendly with them, but once I know that they
have an ideological bent, I pretty much give up on trying to have a real
conversation about society, politics, or, especially, the economy. Some of
them are receptive to contrary facts, but not to their implications, if the
implication is contrary to their general posture. Even if they accept a
contrary fact, it quickly becomes subsumed in their general search for
things that only reinforce their views.


I'm a lot more upset about giving the Orthodox Church $20
million of taxpayer money to rebuild their own church near the site.
They
must not believe in God's will. g

The community center may get public money as well. If it were up to me
I'd only loan the money if both groups agreed to share the same
building.

Wayne

I would not loan religious groups money for anything other than projects
with a clear social benefit.

If I understand it correctly, the loans are only for the community
center portions. The religious portions don't qualify.

It well could be. I haven't read that much about it. It riles me when I see
tax money going to support individual religions.

In principle
it's fair. But these facilities are obviously cliques. Outsiders then
feel entitled to their own clique facility... sigh Maybe those loans
should be stopped altogether. But then the folks who seek them would
feel insulted. :-) Here's how that would go:

"No government involvement in religion means *NO* involvement"

"We're not asking you to be involved, just to loan us money and give
us tax breaks, and if you don't go along then we'll vote in somebody
who will"

G Yeah, that's about it.

Anything to do with religious belief itself is
none of the government's business.

If only. Religions always seem to be after more power and influence,
and they've got centuries of experience shamelessly creating and
exploiting loopholes.
http://blog.au.org/2009/05/05/huntin...lytizing-plan/
http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2010/08/2...proselytizing/
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/articl...izing/19357441
http://www.secular.org/issues/chaplains


Wayne

The Founders must be rolling over in their graves. They were opposed to
standing armies to begin with.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 23:55:23 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

FWIW, this is the best discussion of the subject that I've seen in the
press. It doesn't change the principles, but it makes a good case for why
Americans are so distrustful of Islam. It's a combination of several
mutually reinforcing things, according to the article, which I find to be
perceptive:

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/08/29...e-hostile.html

Interesting article. Thanks!

On 8/29/2010 11:53 PM, Don Foreman wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 23:55:23 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

FWIW, this is the best discussion of the subject that I've seen in the
press. It doesn't change the principles, but it makes a good case for why
Americans are so distrustful of Islam. It's a combination of several
mutually reinforcing things, according to the article, which I find to be
perceptive:

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/08/29...e-hostile.html

Interesting article. Thanks!


FWIW, the collective mind is never wrong...


--

Richard Lamb

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 17:47:08 -0700, wrote:



The law, including the 1st amendment, is not offensive.

Previously you said that you "may or may not" agree with it. Now
you're implying that you agree, but as usual, not saying clearly. Do
you agree with the 1st or not? Can you muster the sincerity to answer
such a simple question without any more weaseling?

OK, simple declarative statement you may be able to comprehend: I
support the U.S. constitution and all of its amendments, and always
have.

This is where, after receiving a black-letter
simpleton-zeolot-comprehensible response, you label it as a lie and me
as a liar. And weasel, your favorite slur. Enjoy your troll.

Why do you now say "may"? Previously you wrote "New Yorkers think a
block and a half is too damned close".

Some do, according to my daughter who lives there. But Rangersuck's
perspective was interesting and persuasive. Two blocks is a very
short walk out here in flyover land but it's a long ways in the
density of Manhattan or London.

to some is the behavior of a group proceeding in
a completely legal but possibly insensitive and callous manner.

Why do you now say "possibly"? Previously you accused them of "an
overtly contemptuous gesture like a raised middle finger, like
spitting on American graves, ****ing on their tombstones and defying
us to object". And you claimed that the building is designed to
"symbolically mark and claim the spoils". Then you judged the builders
as being "not merely a group of faithful muslims seeking a place to
peacefully worship in a land of religious freedom". Do you need a link
for your own quotes?

I think those quotes taken in context would be a bit different than
you represent them here, but I won't quibble. That is how I think I
would feel if I were one of the survivors, and my issue was one of
respecting the feelings of those survivors, particularly since there
was no other reason for choosing that site than those I listed as
possibilities. If there is another reason for choosing that site,
I've not heard it though I've asked that question several times.

The "bridge of understanding" response has no meaning without
definition of how building an Islamic center on that site might create
a bridge of understanding. Dissing the feelings of survivors probably
isn't the best way to build a bridge of understanding. But that's
immaterial under the 1st amendment, which I again assert that I
support lest there be any remnant doubt in your crepescular intellect.
The Muslim mosque-builders certainly have legal right to disregard
any feelings of 9/11 survivors. I tried to advocate some
non-legislated tolerance in the other direction, some sort of empathy
for and resolution of the strong feelings some of the survivors have.
Most religeons advocate kindness, don't know about Islam but I'm not
seeing any evidence in practice. Christians have also committed some
atrocities. You, scorning all religions with contempt, can have no
comprehension of the emotions that might be relevant here.

This may be incomprehensible to you because you clearly delight in
being disagreeable and ****ing people off. You've bragged about that.
You've admitted that you live to ridicule others. You hide behind
anonymity, far off-grid so you can do it with impunity. You
ridicule the beliefs of religious people of all faiths, including
Muslims, calling their Deities "sky daddies". Anonymously of course,
cowardly safe in your remote lair. You are socially disabled, a
basket case.

I find cases like you and your obsession with Gunner interesting. Best
kept at distance, but interesting. Gunner, while obviously having
some disagreeable attitudes and practices, is clearly of far superior
intellect to yours. He may or may not be a psychopath. Either way, he
certainly is not a stupid psychopath.

Politically correct tolerance, oh dear and nevermind.

If anyone is offended, they'll probably have no recourse other than to
bitch about it --

"If" they're offended? Are you sending us code that your opinion has
changed?

Ya got me, Ms. Grammar. Should have said "Those who are offended will
probably have no recourse than to bitch about it."

and if they do

There's no "if" about it. You and others have advocated a sort of
tiered 1st Amendment - complete freedom for those you and Newt deem
worthy, but some kind of second-class freedom for others.

Asked nnd anseerd. Now you spin off into your troll-trick of
baseless assertions and distortions contrived to irritate and elicit
responses to your anonymous cries for attention from your remote hide.
that they'll probably get a ****storm
of outraged reaction from self-righteous pedagogues of political
correctitude.

Ah, just PC running amuck, eh? Those *******s!

Or, they might hope that the construction crew hits an old Indian
sacred site that would might cause a hold on construction for a decade
or two -- first amendment, you know. They were there first!

You know, when I predicted that their suffering would make you happy,
in a moment of hopefulness I figured that you might be smart enough to
keep such feelings to yourself. Notice that I said "might".

Another of your irresponsible baseless troll assertions. No suffering
makes me happy. I've seen suffering. I'm a vet.

Whom do you assert is suffering, and whom do you think should give a
****? Rights are rights, right? Isn't that your soap box here? Are
you advocating a tiered 1st amendment?

A similar situation existed in Royal Oak, MI where an art festival was
held. Some people wanted the festival to be marked off limits for
openly-carried firearms

LOL Is there anything that you can't morph into gun talk?

LOL, really? You can actually laugh? Probably only derisively. I
rather doubt that there is any joy in your anonymous anthrophobic
remote hermit existance.

Meanwhile, I'm a creative guy and I like guns!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TC2xTCb_GU

So the gunslingers' rights
were preserved, and screw any gentle timorous attendees of this
festival that can't take a joke.

Oh sure, it's OK for *you* to say "screw you", but now that you
imagine that others are doing that to you, it's time to brand them the
"enemy", right?

Read it again. It had nothing to do with me. I don't plan to attend
that festival in Royal Oak, MI and if I did I'm licensed for concealed
carry in Michigan but very probably wouldn't at an art festival.

I can't post pictures since no binaries are allowed on this group but
perhaps if you move your lips and follow with your fingers you might
get at least a dim comprehension. Or not, if you're determined not to.
In that case you may proceed directly to fabrications, distortions
pejorative sobriquets and such other troll tricks as you might devise.
I supported a ban of open carry at that festival, and I did so in
previous correspondence to others beyond this newsgroup. The
paragraph you quoted out of context was mild sarcasm which was quite
obvious in context and is even somewhat apparent as quoted by choice
of words like "gentle" and "timorous". The point of that example,
which obviously eluded you, was that the (2d amendment) constitutional
rights of a minority and applicable law in the State of Michigan made
it legal for a minority, the gunslingers, to disregard and disrespect
the sensibilities of another minority for no good reason other than
they could do it and were determined to do so. I deplored that.

The paralellism here is obviously beyond your comprehension, but I
reckon other readers will understand it.

"For Christ's sake, listen to yourself" - Ed Huntress

Not his finest editorial form, but we all have off days.

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 02:42:30 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


I find cases like you and your obsession with Gunner interesting. Best
kept at distance, but interesting. Gunner, while obviously having
some disagreeable attitudes and practices, is clearly of far superior
intellect to yours. He may or may not be a psychopath. Either way, he
certainly is not a stupid psychopath.


Thanks!...I think......

VBG


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 Mon, 30 Aug 2010 02:42:30 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 17:47:08 -0700, wrote:

The law, including the 1st amendment, is not offensive.

Previously you said that you "may or may not" agree with it. Now
you're implying that you agree, but as usual, not saying clearly. Do
you agree with the 1st or not? Can you muster the sincerity to answer
such a simple question without any more weaseling?

OK, simple declarative statement you may be able to comprehend: I
support the U.S. constitution and all of its amendments, and always
have.

I did not ask if you supported the 1st, I asked if you *agreed* with
it, specifically because you indicated that you may not. Who do you
think you're fooling?

This is where, after receiving a black-letter
simpleton-zeolot-comprehensible response, you label it as a lie and me
as a liar.

Then where's the quote? All I can see is more of your smears.

And weasel, your favorite slur.

It fits you perfectly. Simple and direct questions cause you to engage
in an orgy of transparent misdirection.

Why do you now say "may"? Previously you wrote "New Yorkers think a
block and a half is too damned close".

Some do, according to my daughter who lives there.

So what? Millions thought that their Toyotas were conspiring against
them. They were all wrong. Should we have taken a vote to determine if
Toyotas were conspiring? I bet you'll deny the parallels, but face it:
you're the hysterical one now.

to some is the behavior of a group proceeding in
a completely legal but possibly insensitive and callous manner.

Why do you now say "possibly"? Previously you accused them of "an
overtly contemptuous gesture like a raised middle finger, like
spitting on American graves, ****ing on their tombstones and defying
us to object". And you claimed that the building is designed to
"symbolically mark and claim the spoils". Then you judged the builders
as being "not merely a group of faithful muslims seeking a place to
peacefully worship in a land of religious freedom". Do you need a link
for your own quotes?

I think those quotes taken in context would be a bit different than
you represent them here, but I won't quibble.

And yet you resort to weaseling...

That is how I think I
would feel if I were one of the survivors

Ah, so all that stuff you wrote wasn't *your* opinion! Weird how the
extended detail didn't include mention of it being something you
imagined of *others*. Too funny.

If there is another reason for choosing that site,
I've not heard it though I've asked that question several times.

Did you ever bother to ask yourself how many building sites are
available for such a project in a crowded city? Do you have some
inside information that they had lots of other choices, and picked an
abandoned Burlington Coat Factory that nobody else wanted... just to
**** you off? Why would you even bother to pretend that you want to
know any answers anyway when you've made it clear that you formed your
opinion based on *nothing* sensible? Who do you expect to believe that
you're seeking answers, when you continually ignore every fact put
before you?

The "bridge of understanding" response has no meaning without
definition of how building an Islamic center on that site might create
a bridge of understanding.

Clearly, the "enemy" is guilty of neglecting to put up a dictionary
for you!

Dissing the feelings of survivors probably
isn't the best way to build a bridge of understanding.

They *aren't* dissing anyone. *You* insist that you're being dissed,
the same as the hysterical insisted that their Toyota computers were
out to get them. The cure is the same in both cases - examine the
*actual evidence* and act accordingly. The problem is that the cure
only works on those who remember to put their brain in gear.

I tried to advocate some
non-legislated tolerance in the other direction, some sort of empathy
for and resolution of the strong feelings some of the survivors have.

Oh yeah, I remember that...

chorus
Previously you accused them of "an
overtly contemptuous gesture like a raised middle finger, like
spitting on American graves, ****ing on their tombstones and defying
us to object". And you claimed that the building is designed to
"symbolically mark and claim the spoils". Then you judged the builders
as being "not merely a group of faithful muslims seeking a place to
peacefully worship in a land of religious freedom".

back to the misdirection

Most religeons advocate kindness, don't know about Islam but I'm not
seeing any evidence in practice.

"Who is so deafe, or so blynde, as is hee, That wilfully will nother
here nor see. - J. Heywood

Christians have also committed some
atrocities.

No ****?

You, scorning all religions with contempt, can have no
comprehension of the emotions that might be relevant here.

Oh yeah, my opinion of religion in general couldn't have anything to
do with the atrocities committed in their name.

This may be incomprehensible to you because you clearly delight in
being disagreeable and ****ing people off. You've bragged about that.
You've admitted that you live to ridicule others. You hide behind
anonymity, far off-grid so you can do it with impunity.

Now you're just lying again. As I've repeatedly told you, my "lair" is
a whole half hour from Walmart, and several posters have visited it.
So it can't be very hard to find, and gummer has assured readers that
he knows where it is. Are you saying that you don't believe him?
guffaw So I have no "impunity" except perhaps that those who would
wish me harm based on my words, are just a bunch of loudmouths who
tell whoppers about who they have and will kill etc. The trouble for
them is that it's pretty obvious that the main reason they don't live
their BS is that it would require them to get up out of their chairs.
Apparently that time is reserved for crapping and maybe tea party
rallies. There just isn't enough of it for going on commando raids, or
even earning a living in some cases.

Regardless, most of the points I've made here have been voiced by
others as well, so this talk of my "impunity" is just another of your
lame distractions.

Gunner, while obviously having some disagreeable attitudes and practices,

Now wait just a darned minute there! While most of us might consider
his "great cull" to be his most disagreeable wet dream so far, you
alone have claimed to be on his list of participants. So I don't see
how you can call him disagreeable. snorf

is clearly of far superior
intellect to yours.

Well sure. Because as we all know, people of superior intellect tend
to live on "acreage" and run up decades of liens.

He may or may not be a psychopath.

Yeah, that's the thing with those of superior intellect - they can't
have everything, right?

Either way, he
certainly is not a stupid psychopath.

Well, disregarding for a moment that a cull participant who thought it
wise to publicly declare 1.5 billion guilty by association might
chuckle not be the best person to be judging who's stupid and who
isn't... exactly how many smart people do you know who spend their
scant income on cigarettes rather than paying their property taxes?
Can you explain why smart people prefer to thieve net access from
their neighbor's provider? Enquiring minds and all that ...

If anyone is offended, they'll probably have no recourse other than to
bitch about it --

"If" they're offended? Are you sending us code that your opinion has
changed?

Ya got me, Ms. Grammar. Should have said "Those who are offended will
probably have no recourse than to bitch about it."

Wrong again. Those who are offended can and will do a lot more than
bitch. They're going to use every dickish tactic they can think of.
The builders will need to consider practicalities ranging from spit in
their coffee to short-bagging of their concrete.

and if they do

There's no "if" about it. You and others have advocated a sort of
tiered 1st Amendment - complete freedom for those you and Newt deem
worthy, but some kind of second-class freedom for others.

Asked nnd anseerd.

BS Your theory that the builders can have full freedom "somewhere
else" is ridiculous.

Or, they might hope that the construction crew hits an old Indian
sacred site that would might cause a hold on construction for a decade
or two -- first amendment, you know. They were there first!

You know, when I predicted that their suffering would make you happy,
in a moment of hopefulness I figured that you might be smart enough to
keep such feelings to yourself. Notice that I said "might".

Another of your irresponsible baseless troll assertions. No suffering
makes me happy. I've seen suffering. I'm a vet.

Sure, you *should* be able to empathize, but clearly you can't.

Whom do you assert is suffering,

As you well know, the effects of the hysteria you've engaged in will
probably take decades to die down, if ever. We're all the worse for
it, but the project builders will feel the persecution the most,
directly and indirectly. I can only imagine how much their costs will
go up, I wouldn't be surprised if the project is scuttled for that
reason alone. Don't bother to pretend that that possibility wouldn't
please you.

and whom do you think should give a
****?

Everybody. At least, everybody sensible.

Rights are rights, right? Isn't that your soap box here? Are
you advocating a tiered 1st amendment?

What an idiot.

"For Christ's sake, listen to yourself" - Ed Huntress

Not his finest editorial form, but we all have off days.

He was trying to help you. Can't see it, eh?
What a shock.

Wayne

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 23:55:23 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 12:07:34 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 11:30:38 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
om...

FWIW, this is the best discussion of the subject that I've seen in the
press. It doesn't change the principles, but it makes a good case for why
Americans are so distrustful of Islam. It's a combination of several
mutually reinforcing things, according to the article, which I find to be
perceptive:

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/08/29...e-hostile.html

It's a good article, but what a shameful situation it describes.
Although I couldn't help but chuckle at this part "Republicans and
those without college educations tend to be less favorable toward
Islam".

If I really cared, I wouldn't say this, but the fact is that you give
conservatives much more credit than I do.

I doubt that! You're the guy who at least sometimes wants to talk with
them, where I prefer to talk at them. At least, the ones who are
clearly hopeless anyway.

That's why you get so angry, and I
usually just get frustrated. FWIW, I give no more credit to liberals. I get
angry mostly over matters of personal character, not political views.

I think that character and politics have mostly merged in the writings
of the whipping boys that I ridicule.

That doesn't mean I can't be friendly with them, but once I know that they
have an ideological bent, I pretty much give up on trying to have a real
conversation about society, politics, or, especially, the economy. Some of
them are receptive to contrary facts, but not to their implications, if the
implication is contrary to their general posture. Even if they accept a
contrary fact, it quickly becomes subsumed in their general search for
things that only reinforce their views.

Hey, that's almost exactly what I was going to say!

"No government involvement in religion means *NO* involvement"

"We're not asking you to be involved, just to loan us money and give
us tax breaks, and if you don't go along then we'll vote in somebody
who will"

G Yeah, that's about it.

Anything to do with religious belief itself is
none of the government's business.

If only. Religions always seem to be after more power and influence,
and they've got centuries of experience shamelessly creating and
exploiting loopholes.
http://blog.au.org/2009/05/05/huntin...lytizing-plan/
http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2010/08/2...proselytizing/
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/articl...izing/19357441
http://www.secular.org/issues/chaplains


Wayne

The Founders must be rolling over in their graves. They were opposed to
standing armies to begin with.

Since you saved me writing a whole paragraph above, I'll use the time
to imagine a conversation between a founder and a representative of
our current society. I've used the initials A and C, see if you can
guess what they stand for. snorf

A: I see that you invaded Iraq. What's that all about?

C: Well, for one thing, we were attacked by some Saudis.

A: So you attacked Saudi Arabia as well?

C: Of course not, Afghanistan.

A: Who's in Afghanistan?

C: Al-Qaeda.

A: Did you get their leader?

C: No, he's probably in Pakistan.

A: I still don't understand why you invaded Iraq.

C: Because of the WMDs.

A: What did you attack them with?

C: Our WMDs.

A: So now you have their WMDs as well?

C: How could we, they didn't actually have any.

A: It's hard to believe that after two centuries you folks are still
having such problems.

C: Yeah, us too. But our army is handing out Bibles to the Muslims, so
things should get better soon.

A: Next time let me stay dead for at least a millennia. Do you know
how long that is or do I need to draw you a picture of that many
apples?

Wayne

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:25:18 -0500, CaveLamb
wrote:


the collective mind is never wrong...

Yeah, consider the collective wisdom on slavery, fast food, and the
Macarena for instance.

Wayne

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:23:40 -0500, 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.


What I haven't figured out is how the flight to heaven on the horse
just happens to be on the jew's site. The temple mount, the holy
temple, and the christians all claming this spot is their god's
airport. Maybe they all take off there and land, but missed JFK in NY.
Naw But doesn't it seem a bit strange that three different gods are
fighting over the same real estate?


SW

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:07:32 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

We Americans do
nothing so well as justify our own actions in the international sphere, when
most of us don't even really know what they are. We've been playing a
heavy-handed role in the Middle East for many decades. A lot of people there
are ****ed off. They're probably a lot like us in some ways, and you can
imagine how we'd feel if some dominant world power moved in here, propped up
a tyrannical government, built military bases in the US, etc. But you can't
empathize with them, and see that they feel a lot like we would under the
same circumstances. They have their pathologies, but our actions have done a
fine job of justifying them in their own minds, and we've fertilized them
and made them flower.



There are a bunch of them, and I'm sure tons more that hasn't come
out. Like the Shaw, or supplying Sadam to fight the Iranians, and the
all important stinger missiles for the Taliban to take out air strikes
from the Russians and then jilting them. How about terror attacks in
Iran and shooting down one of their airliners.

I find it very strange how no one wants to hear anything of the sort.
Like my Johnny wouldn't do that, that girl is lying !

Seemed obvious from the get go that it was retaliation, not oh they
just hate us for being the free gentile great satan.

Ed, I think your the only one else that I've heard say that we might
have had something to do with it.

I find it scary that most people think that way at all. It is straight
forward when observing them watching football, no objectivity at all.


SW

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:38:11 -0500, Sunworshipper wrote:

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:07:32 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

We Americans do
nothing so well as justify our own actions in the international sphere, when
most of us don't even really know what they are. We've been playing a
heavy-handed role in the Middle East for many decades. A lot of people there
are ****ed off. They're probably a lot like us in some ways, and you can
imagine how we'd feel if some dominant world power moved in here, propped up
a tyrannical government, built military bases in the US, etc. But you can't
empathize with them, and see that they feel a lot like we would under the
same circumstances. They have their pathologies, but our actions have done a
fine job of justifying them in their own minds, and we've fertilized them
and made them flower.



There are a bunch of them, and I'm sure tons more that hasn't come
out. Like the Shaw, or supplying Sadam to fight the Iranians, and the
all important stinger missiles for the Taliban to take out air strikes
from the Russians and then jilting them. How about terror attacks in
Iran and shooting down one of their airliners.

I find it very strange how no one wants to hear anything of the sort.
Like my Johnny wouldn't do that, that girl is lying !

Seemed obvious from the get go that it was retaliation, not oh they
just hate us for being the free gentile great satan.

Ed, I think your the only one else that I've heard say that we might
have had something to do with it.

I find it scary that most people think that way at all. It is straight
forward when observing them watching football, no objectivity at all.


SW

Odd that Eddy Boy seems to think that holding women as chattel, ****ing
donkeys, suicide bombers, 70 yrs of trying to kill the Jews and so
forth..were all caused by America.

Looks like Fast Eddy is trying to find a cause besides radical Islam.

I wonder...why?

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)

Since the days of John Paul Jones we have had problems with Muslim or
Arab (Christians? Jews ? Shinto ?) Those kicked out of Jordan and later
claimed land in Israel are part of the problem. Those who attacked our
embassy, Cole, Dumping an old man in a wheel chair overboard - real men...

These are the 'nice' people that invaded India and killed many of them.
They took over a large portion of India - just never got the south.
Then on to South East Asia... They are trouble in Britain, France, Netherlands,
Germany, and many other countries. Even trouble here from time to time.
Wonder how they are almost or are 100% of the population in an Ohio town.
I read the Highway patrol has to be the local police.

Nice, pleasant people. Everyone moved out - including the police. Everyone.

Their aim is to take over the world. Their one time moto, "Join or Die"...

Martin

Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
"Our Republic and the Press will Rise or Fall Together": Joseph Pulitzer
TSRA: Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Originator & Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member. http://lufkinced.com/

On 8/29/2010 11:53 PM, Don Foreman wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 23:55:23 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

FWIW, this is the best discussion of the subject that I've seen in the
press. It doesn't change the principles, but it makes a good case for why
Americans are so distrustful of Islam. It's a combination of several
mutually reinforcing things, according to the article, which I find to be
perceptive:

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/08/29...e-hostile.html

Interesting article. Thanks!

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:40:31 -0700, wrote:


I doubt that! You're the guy who at least sometimes wants to talk with
them, where I prefer to talk at them.

That is indeed a key difference, exactly why you will never succeed in
influencing any opinions. Being obnoxious and venomous is not
persuasive or amusing. It's merely a troll for attention.

That doesn't mean I can't be friendly with them, but once I know that they
have an ideological bent, I pretty much give up on trying to have a real
conversation about society, politics, or, especially, the economy. Some of
them are receptive to contrary facts, but not to their implications, if the
implication is contrary to their general posture. Even if they accept a
contrary fact, it quickly becomes subsumed in their general search for
things that only reinforce their views.

Hey, that's almost exactly what I was going to say!

Not bloody likely. Ed's statement is an observation and comment with
no insults, namecalling, ad hominem attacks or vituperative rhetoric.
And besides, "almost exactly" is an oxymoron. G

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 03:31:17 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 02:42:30 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


I find cases like you and your obsession with Gunner interesting. Best
kept at distance, but interesting. Gunner, while obviously having
some disagreeable attitudes and practices, is clearly of far superior
intellect to yours. He may or may not be a psychopath. Either way, he
certainly is not a stupid psychopath.


Thanks!...I think......

VBG


Gunner

Da nada!

All things in moderation, including psychopathy per Wayne of no
degrees or creds.

"Sunworshipper" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:07:32 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

We Americans do
nothing so well as justify our own actions in the international sphere,
when
most of us don't even really know what they are. We've been playing a
heavy-handed role in the Middle East for many decades. A lot of people
there
are ****ed off. They're probably a lot like us in some ways, and you can
imagine how we'd feel if some dominant world power moved in here, propped
up
a tyrannical government, built military bases in the US, etc. But you
can't
empathize with them, and see that they feel a lot like we would under the
same circumstances. They have their pathologies, but our actions have done
a
fine job of justifying them in their own minds, and we've fertilized them
and made them flower.



There are a bunch of them, and I'm sure tons more that hasn't come
out. Like the Shaw, or supplying Sadam to fight the Iranians, and the
all important stinger missiles for the Taliban to take out air strikes
from the Russians and then jilting them. How about terror attacks in
Iran and shooting down one of their airliners.

I find it very strange how no one wants to hear anything of the sort.

It's human nature. We just have a particularly large dose of it, among the
developed countries, at least.

Like my Johnny wouldn't do that, that girl is lying !

Seemed obvious from the get go that it was retaliation, not oh they
just hate us for being the free gentile great satan.

Ed, I think your the only one else that I've heard say that we might
have had something to do with it.

We blunder into these things, SW. It's not ill-motivation. We've never come
to grips with being a superpower, in terms of the aftereffects of the
policies we implement. We're like bulls in a china shop. And we're pretty
much insular, as we've always been. We assume nefarious motivations for
almost everyone because we know so little about them before we start
shooting. We project from the clear cases -- WWII and much of the Cold War.

Someone once called the Vietnam fiasco "the worst war ever fought for noble
purposes." I think he was a diplomat who had worked in the area before the
war. He said we started off with good motives, and then wrecked everything
we were trying to preserve.


I find it scary that most people think that way at all. It is straight
forward when observing them watching football, no objectivity at all.

It's a byproduct of living an insular existence.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:38:11 -0500, Sunworshipper wrote:

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:07:32 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

We Americans do
nothing so well as justify our own actions in the international sphere,
when
most of us don't even really know what they are. We've been playing a
heavy-handed role in the Middle East for many decades. A lot of people
there
are ****ed off. They're probably a lot like us in some ways, and you can
imagine how we'd feel if some dominant world power moved in here, propped
up
a tyrannical government, built military bases in the US, etc. But you
can't
empathize with them, and see that they feel a lot like we would under the
same circumstances. They have their pathologies, but our actions have
done a
fine job of justifying them in their own minds, and we've fertilized them
and made them flower.



There are a bunch of them, and I'm sure tons more that hasn't come
out. Like the Shaw, or supplying Sadam to fight the Iranians, and the
all important stinger missiles for the Taliban to take out air strikes
from the Russians and then jilting them. How about terror attacks in
Iran and shooting down one of their airliners.

I find it very strange how no one wants to hear anything of the sort.
Like my Johnny wouldn't do that, that girl is lying !

Seemed obvious from the get go that it was retaliation, not oh they
just hate us for being the free gentile great satan.

Ed, I think your the only one else that I've heard say that we might
have had something to do with it.

I find it scary that most people think that way at all. It is straight
forward when observing them watching football, no objectivity at all.


SW

Odd that Eddy Boy seems to think that holding women as chattel, ****ing
donkeys, suicide bombers, 70 yrs of trying to kill the Jews and so
forth..were all caused by America.

Looks like Fast Eddy is trying to find a cause besides radical Islam.

I wonder...why?

Gunner

Of course you wonder about lots of things, mister snip-and-clip. You don't
even know the context for any of that.

As for how confused you are about so many things, consider that you thought
it was a wise thing to teach gang-bangers how to shoot handguns. You really
don't know whether you're coming or going, Gunner.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 23:24:08 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:40:31 -0700, wrote:


I doubt that! You're the guy who at least sometimes wants to talk with
them, where I prefer to talk at them.

That is indeed a key difference, exactly why you will never succeed in
influencing any opinions.



As you well know, I've stated plainly that I know that people like you
can't be cured of their ignorant beliefs.

"You'll remain irrationally fearful and insulted until you bite the
dirt"
"No amount of education is likely to cure that" - wmbjk

So why are you pretending that I hope to influence you? Why would
*anyone* imagine that you could have your mind changed, considering
that your tendency is to weasel, and to continually refuse to give one
word answers to simple questions?

That doesn't mean I can't be friendly with them, but once I know that they
have an ideological bent, I pretty much give up on trying to have a real
conversation about society, politics, or, especially, the economy. Some of
them are receptive to contrary facts, but not to their implications, if the
implication is contrary to their general posture. Even if they accept a
contrary fact, it quickly becomes subsumed in their general search for
things that only reinforce their views.

Hey, that's almost exactly what I was going to say!

Not bloody likely.

Oh really?

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.c...18387bc74d252c

**************
I know the feeling. In my neck of the woods, I pretty much couldn't
have any local friends at all unless I'm willing to tolerate rabid
conservatives. Each has their individual volume level, so I treat them
accordingly. Some are good friends, and we either avoid topics of
disagreement or banter in good humor. Some become more acquaintances
than friends because needing to work around their issues devalues
their friendship. And some get cut loose entirely because they can't
contain themselves. Two of those got their emails blocked because they
refused to stop sending political BS despite being asked politely. I
find that those who promote nonsense such as BA being sworn in on the
Koran are just plain ignorant, a trait that carries over well beyond
politics. In the end though, things wouldn't be much different overall
even if I lived in a more liberal area. I can certainly imagine
blocking email from rabid left-wing neighbors (if I had any) for
example. Heck, even people I really like sometimes have to be told to
stop sending so many jokes, videos, etc. I think that the effect of
opposing political ideology is often overblown. People seem to have a
natural tendency to divide themselves into opposing camps, and if
there's no obvious reason to do so then they'll find one before long.
Anybody who's ever attended a homeowner's association meeting will
know what I'm talking about. :-)
****************

Face it, I direct my ridicule at those who deserve it, and scale it in
proportion to their ignorance. You got some heat here because you're
pushing a very destructive and indefensible position, and you damned
well know it. Think you're fooling anyone with
that-crap-I-wrote-was-the-opinion-of-*others* strategy? LOL Anybody
who'd fall for that believes that 6000 sq ft is "several acres".

Apparently you're more upset about a "troll" insulting you, than you
are about having an ugly ill-formed opinion. Yikes!

Wayne

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 08:58:03 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .

Odd that Eddy Boy seems to think that holding women as chattel, ****ing
donkeys, suicide bombers, 70 yrs of trying to kill the Jews and so
forth..were all caused by America.

Looks like Fast Eddy is trying to find a cause besides radical Islam.

I wonder...why?

Gunner

Of course you wonder about lots of things, mister snip-and-clip. You don't
even know the context for any of that.

As for how confused you are about so many things, consider that you thought
it was a wise thing to teach gang-bangers how to shoot handguns. You really
don't know whether you're coming or going, Gunner.

.... and he thinks that being called a psychopath is a compliment!
Maybe it's higher than deadbeat on the white-trash accomplishment
scale.

BTW - I note that some idiots would like to deny any repercussions
from their ill-considered rhetoric. I wonder how they'll rationalize
this http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#38926601.

Wayne

On 8/28/2010 2:36 AM, F. George McDuffee wrote:
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)

"Rush Limbaugh - Sought deferment for ingrown hair follicle on his ass."

Probably the only thing I had in common with Rush was suffering from a
pilonidal cyst. The military was really eager to NOT induct those of us
who had them, also called "Jeep's Disease."

"The condition was widespread in the United States Army during World War
II. More than eighty thousand soldiers having the condition required
hospitalization.[12] It was termed "jeep seat or "Jeep riders'
disease", because a large portion of people who were being hospitalized
for it rode in jeeps, and prolonged rides in the bumpy vehicles were
believed to have caused the condition due to irritation and pressure on
the coccyx."

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

My treatment was surgical removal followed by 2 months of sitting in a
warm bath for 30+ minutes 3 or 4 times a day. It couldn't be sutured
shut, it had to heal from the inside out. I was lucky that I could get
medical leave from my job.

If any of the other "questionable" deferments on the webguild site are
like this one, I'll write the whole site off.

80,000 WWII troops sidelined for 2+ months.

David

The Great Cull has Begun?
(It's just not quite what Gunner had in mind,.


Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski has conceded defeat to upstart Tea Party favorite
Joe Miller after a day of counting ballots in their razor-thin Republican
primary, the Associated Press reports.

The AP said Murkowski was behind Miller, a lawyer and Gulf War veteran, by 1,630
votes on Tuesday night. She had been behind by 1,668 votes after last week's
primary.

.. . .


http://content.usatoday.com/communit...aska-senate-/1

"CaveLamb" wrote in message
m...

The Great Cull has Begun?
(It's just not quite what Gunner had in mind,.


Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski has conceded defeat to upstart Tea Party
favorite Joe Miller after a day of counting ballots in their razor-thin
Republican primary, the Associated Press reports.

The AP said Murkowski was behind Miller, a lawyer and Gulf War veteran, by
1,630 votes on Tuesday night. She had been behind by 1,668 votes after
last week's primary.

. . .


http://content.usatoday.com/communit...aska-senate-/1



The problem with the IR cam is that my black jacket, and sweat shirts look
white. Anything green is a grey colour, sometimes with a pinkish tinge.


Steve R.

On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 01:16:43 -0500, CaveLamb
wrote:


The Great Cull has Begun?
(It's just not quite what Gunner had in mind,.

Win some, kill some. While it may or may not have started..its still a
very good thing.

Gunner



Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski has conceded defeat to upstart Tea Party favorite
Joe Miller after a day of counting ballots in their razor-thin Republican
primary, the Associated Press reports.

The AP said Murkowski was behind Miller, a lawyer and Gulf War veteran, by 1,630
votes on Tuesday night. She had been behind by 1,668 votes after last week's
primary.

. . .


http://content.usatoday.com/communit...aska-senate-/1



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 Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:38:11 -0500, Sunworshipper wrote:


Odd that Eddy Boy seems to think that holding women as chattel, ****ing
donkeys, suicide bombers, 70 yrs of trying to kill the Jews and so
forth..were all caused by America.

Looks like Fast Eddy is trying to find a cause besides radical Islam.

I wonder...why?

Gunner

Hey, Gunner, here's a story about a guy who thinks exactly like you!:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man...ow-abou,17990/

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 14:18:59 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:38:11 -0500, Sunworshipper wrote:


Odd that Eddy Boy seems to think that holding women as chattel, ****ing
donkeys, suicide bombers, 70 yrs of trying to kill the Jews and so
forth..were all caused by America.

Looks like Fast Eddy is trying to find a cause besides radical Islam.

I wonder...why?

Gunner

Hey, Gunner, here's a story about a guy who thinks exactly like you!:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man...ow-abou,17990/

Fits foreman just as well. His "if any" quote etc, could have been
used verbatim in that article.

Wayne

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


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.

Assuming that you really don't understand, I'll try to explain.

An atrocity was committed at ground zero in the name of Islam by Al
Q'aeda. You knew that. Everybody knows that.

If Muslim Americans decry the terrorist acts of Al Q'aeda, they've
certainly not been vocal about it since 2001. There have been a few
squeaks and peeps but mostly silence that implies consent.

There are definitely some who associate Islam with the atrocity of
9/11, particularly those personally affected. Duh!

You say that such association as a generality is wrong, though
neither you nor the Muslims offer any significant evidence to that
effect. Even if it is incorrect, perhaps you hold that the views
of these affected Americans deserve no respect.

I've seen no rationale for building an Islamic center two blocks from
ground zero vs elsewhere.

I've seen no comment as to how building the Islamic center elsewhere
would be any sort of compromise or sacrifice for the Muslims.

Since there is no reason not to build elsewhere and no rationale for
building there, then persisting on this course in spite of the fact
that a majority of New Yorkers (per your stats) find it offensive is
flagrant disrespect. Flagrant disrespect is an insult.

The muslims can do this per 1st amendment, so they will whether the
citizens of New York like it or not and **** 'em if they can't take
a joke.

You can't see the insult here?

Don Foreman wrote:

You can't see the insult here?





You mean the one that goes...

Ha Ha, we won, you lost.

We're rich, you're poor.

We're strong, you're weak.

We can build a shrine to our martyrs
right ****ing here.

So **** off and go watch TV.

Or Else...