1  2  3  4  5  6  |   Order by default

Mar 7, 2003, 11:27pm

Australian huh?

Ok now so that I may be totally fair and impartial in my own simple-minded
stereotypical come-back to you Justin, I first need some background
information. What vicious and brutal crimes were your ancestors convicted
of? On the other hand if you are Aborigine, please do not consume your
translator until he or she explains my post to you.

Disclaimer: That was for illustration purposes only. It in no way reflects
my views, real or imagined.

Generally speaking, before AW, I had no idea that 100% of US citizens were
held accountable for the actions of the worst, and I did not have my head
buried in the sand. Any citizen of a foreign country that I had the pleasure
to meet face to face treated me with respect as an individual and as an
American. Could it be that true colors of those who love to breed hate and
contempt are only shown when he or she (though I don't generally hear it
from "she's") can be hidden behind the text in a news group or some equally
safe place? I had no idea that each of our citizens was considered only as
good as the ones among us that are generally considered less than desirable
by the rest of the world and other US citizens as well. If a chain is
considered only as strong as it's weakest link, it is the whole world that
is falling apart, not just the US.

Out of curiosity, I've been reading some of the foreign (to me) online
newspapers from around the world pertaining to Iraq and related subjects and
it's amazing the different slant each of them has to some degree or another.
How come only US (based) news, especially CNN, is considered to be holding
back or stating untruths but yet many accounts from many different countries
are quite varied themselves? But more than that, why do I often see it said
that this or that non-US government official or spokesman of some sort or
other "told CNN news" some statement or other if CNN achieves no respect as
a non-biased and accurate news service? Do you really think that CNN would
get away with miss-quoting Hans Blix, for example?

Case in point: this week in a private commercial US establishment 2 men wore
anti-war shirts and some privately hired security people at this
establishment told the men to remove the shirts or leave. The men refused so
police were called who had to, because it was private property, make the 2
men comply. Now get this.... I saw this news story in foreign (to me) news
accounts as government oppression and relating to lack of free speech, as if
the government disallowed the men to protest by wearing the shirts. The
government had nothing to do with it nor did the police department except as
"defenders" of private property.....it was the property owner's right to
allow or disallow these men on his property no matter how petty the reason.
Now if that wasn't twisting the news, and our government policies, I sure
don't know what is. The US has held as many anti-war demonstrations as
anyone else and no one tried to stop them. Both sides have the right to be
heard.

Why do we here playing around in AW think we are smarter than those who took
the initiative to "run the world"? Even among those men and women there will
be good and bad, effective and not so effective and every shade in
between-from all countries-at one time or the other. But it is true that we
do only know what we read or see on the news for the most part so lets not
cut each other down based on the worst news stories you can find. And don't
ever, ever rate all citizens by what some news service says about their
country's politics until you have heard from every single last one of them.

If the US haters out there are any indication of world sentiment, things
will never change. Why do you think your statements of disgust and spewing
of, in many cases, misinformation will help? Shouldn't trust and
understanding start with individuals? Of course every one won't qualify, but
none will if you base your opinion on the worst thing you can think of as a
matter of course.

>He's an Aussie. Half of them like us, the other half don't.

Chris

[View Quote]

Mar 8, 2003, 2:33am

Well of course those things are just theory and conjecture on your part...or
else-where did you get your inside information? But I am almost entirely
apolitical and my earlier post responding to yours refers only to this
remark:

"Americans want something to attack - they need an enemy. If they do not get
one they will attack their own government."

While that ridiculously broad statement may be true of a few (in any country
you can name) it certainly isn't anywhere near universal in the US. I
personally can't think of a single person that I know that falls into this
category. Or...maybe your personal sources would prove me wrong? It is
personally insulting and unnecessarily derogatory when speaking of Americans
in general.

But, concerning your present post, if you bring up our theoretical oil
advantages for going to war with Iraq, please fairly mention the personal
advantages some of our European friends have for avoiding war with Iraq, and
I don't mean just to keep the peace.

As for this statement: "Repeating, the reason Bush wants to go to war is to
divert attention from his own failings and being attacked by his own media
and public."

His standing was never so good, better than many presidents had at the high
points of their presidency, as they were in the months following September
11, 2001. He was not considered a "failure" at all at that point, possibly
through little merit of his own but he enjoyed high ratings never the less.
His place in the polls now are well under 50% since these months of
threatened war.

For the record, I do agree about a "better solution". I was one of the
millions, yes-millions-of Americans who protested and continue to do so in
whatever way we see fit against going to war. I do know though that the US
has been solicited more than once to militarily aid other countries and it
is often that no matter which way we go, someone will complain. As much as I
love my country for many reasons, I'm beginning to feel that I'd much rather
it be a country that took care of it's own and that we kept our eyes shut
against the plights of other countries. (Well, except in a humanitarian
way).

Equal regards, CarolAnn




[View Quote]

Mar 8, 2003, 5:48pm

Jeeeeeeeezzzz!! No it is not the same government (as far as human
individuals go, and our government IS made up of living people-how about
yours? People who have long since died?)....that was the government of 150
and 200 + years ago. And those things were done in many cases by people
fresh from Europe. Do you know that the slaves were traded in many cases by
their own people? By the way...one of the leaders of the war movement in
this country is Colin Powell...have you noticed what color he is? And Bush's
National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice? Not only black but a woman
besides! Do you think we still have slaves for God's sake?? And by the
way-we have Native Americans, "indeans" (sic) are from India. I think the
things you mention have long since past. Stop digging up old dead bones!
Drop it. (ummm OTOH...maybe you could tell me a little bit of the history of
your country so I can retaliate in kind? I love history.)


[View Quote]

Mar 9, 2003, 5:14pm

Well he said take your pick. I think the guy has made some very astute
observations there ;-)
[View Quote]

Mar 11, 2003, 8:23am

[View Quote] > Funny thing is also that USA is planning to use chemical weapons in the
> attack; the same weapons that are supposed to be a reason for an attack.
> Contravercial I would say.

> Drac

If I could stretch my money as far as this story stretches the truth I could
feed Iraq's hungry for a year. Did you research this before you started
spreading it? I researched it as soon as it was sent to me. It was US
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld answering a question with the statement
that, regrettably, US military confronted with armed civilians, or US
military finding themselves in situations where innocents are gathered
together with Iraqi combatants cannot legally use non-lethal things like
tear gas to disable (preferable over killing them I would say) but by
international law they can use deadly weapons instead. He finds that the
international law that says they can kill but not disable by using a
"bio-chemical weapon" of non-deadly tear gas (etc) puts them in a very bad
situation where innocents are concerned, or when US troops are also in
jeopardy and/or have cornered combatants combined with innocents.

The other day I looked everywhere I could look to find one shred of real
truth to this story, beyond the "truth" I have stated. I listened to the
audio, I went to C-Span, I went to the House Armed Services Committee
archives, I went to news services, but the only sources that said it as
"Pentagon Plans to Use Biochemical Weapons on Iraq" all stemmed to some site
called the Sunshine-Project. And even there the audio told me the same
thing...they regretted that they could kill but not temporarily disable if
the weapon was a gas instead of a bullet. Several sites had the same type of
headline but referred back to this same "Sunshine-Project". They are
attempting to confuse the reader with the term biochemical weapon. If you
got your information from somewhere else....I'd love to hear about it. Here
is the audio in question:

http://www.sunshine-project.org/publications/pr/support/gasiraq.mp3

I don't want war as much as you don't want war but there are enough
negatives to say about it without throwing in things that you don't make
very sure there is a fully truthful basis for. But seriously, if you find
more, please let me know. I mean fully documented and indisputable
information. It's was kind of difficult to cover everything, but I tried.

By the way, as I researched this I found out a bit about the history of
biochemical weapons. Pretty interesting stuff if you don't think about it in
human terms.

Mar 18, 2003, 3:18pm

[View Quote] I guess this just means we all have our individual points of view.

> and the whole thing about atacking after the destuction of weapons, which
> ananas mentioned, is quite a cowardly thing to do....

Well, I think the point is, if Bush happened to be right, that Saddam has
only gotten rid of his minor weapons, those least important to him, and that
he has other ones, the ones to which Bush refers, capable of doing what
supposedly he is trying to prevent then it would not be the cowardly act it
looks like to the Iraq defenders. Keep in mind, this is a neutral statement
by me. I don't know, and none of us here knows for sure if this is true or
not. I suppose we might know more about that soon. I hope we are all
surprised in the best way. That's why this kind of a discussion in a place
like this is only effective in causing hate among individuals who started
out by coming together for the same purpose, 3d interactive entertainment
and/or friendship (I thought). We sure can't expect that we know more than
any other reasonably informed person in here, and certainly we do not even
know a very minimal amount of what goes on behind any government doors. It's
like trying to argue about what the core of the Earth contains by what kind
of grass grows on the surface.
But the real harm in here is when some say "down with the Americans" or "God
save us from Americans" or even the ones who believe if individual innocent
Iraqi citizens die (which they do NOT deserve) that then individual innocent
US citizens deserve things like 9/11/01 (just for example, I'm not
necessarily relating it). Just like we were strongly urged not to base our
views of Muslims on what happened on that date. During WW2 in the US and
still today in our schools and among our citizens you hear discussions about
heroic German individuals who saved and supported and hid, at their own
great risk, Jewish people who were trying to escape Hitler's hate. These
survivors speak in our schools telling of their escapes and the German
citizens who made it possible. It was Hitler's agenda that was evil, not the
general German population. A person local to me has just written a book
about a German POW camp right near me (there were many here, unknown to most
at the time) and she relates how these German POW's interacted with and were
befriended by many in the towns they were housed. Now, this is an elderly
lady who was there-NOT a propagandist. This is the way it should be, (except
it shouldn't come to that at all). Individuals are individuals first, at
least check it out, and their allegiances are often secondary.

http://www.aiipowmia.com/inter22/in042802wisc.html

http://www.wartburg.edu/trumpet/2001/dec3/feature1.html

(really interesting stuff, no matter what your views, especially for
Americans and Germans)

Treat everyone as an individual and give him or her the respect he deserves,
if any, by his OWN actions, not those of his country or even the rest of his
family.

Thinking back, these particular discussions started when someone gave a link
to a site supporting US troops. At least some of those troops don't even
want war but are there because they were directed to by their government's
order. Actually I imagine there as many different views among them as there
are among the general population. They didn't all join the military with the
thought of killing, many joined way before thoughts of war were in the air.
Some joined to protect and defend, some to be able to afford an education
later, some even for the employment or just to see the world. They are not
mostly evil even if the act they might have to perform is considered evil by
many, just as any military individual anywhere is not essentially evil just
because he has to do what his country tells him or her. Many leave young
children, and also little brothers and sisters. Someone asked then "Where is
the Iraqi support website?" I feel the same about any usually peaceful Iraqi
soldiers who do not want to kill. None of them should be there doing
something totally against his/her whole character. There is nothing wrong
with letting these individuals know they are being thought about. I realize
that this last statement might be very controversial among US readers, but
keep in mind I mean people who do not want to kill.

Mar 18, 2003, 7:19pm

[View Quote] One minute there SS. Can we leave all differences aside just for a minute,
forget what you feel about the US, forget everything else but Saddam Hussein
and his rule in Iraq...no snide comments such as that above? Can you
honestly say that you believe Saddam Hussein has been no threat to anyone,
including his own people, in the last 20 years? How can you alone say what
his intentions are?

Mar 19, 2003, 1:07pm

See what I mean? One (1) person made that comment, and no Americans even
responded to it, but yet it is credited to ALL Americans, apparently. Can
you tell me without making any generalizations swe, why do Lybians always
generalize like that? ;-)

[View Quote]

Mar 19, 2003, 1:32pm

What in the world does that have to do with anything, right or wrong, good
or bad, American or otherwise? Are you grasping for ways to make yourself
seem right or him wrong? I sure don't think that that adds to your
credibility or take away from his, whether it's even the case or not. Do you
really?

[View Quote]

Mar 20, 2003, 2:41pm

Yep-that's right and if I missed him doing the same to you (Swe) you don't
deserve that either. It probably was because these posts have kind of
dissolved into a whole maze of stuff and sometimes a person just has to kind
of skim through it or leave whole parts unread. But very personal details,
like "the 40+ yr old with no wife, girlfriend, or friends for that matter"
kind of stood out and sure shouldn't have any bearing on whether a person
knows what they're talking about or not in this case and even sounded like
it was meant to be an insult (why is that?), although I can't imagine why it
would be brought up or important for this argument. We're all individuals
with our own views and if we keep it civil and to the point with a
reasonably intelligent line of reasoning, we all should listen and be
listened to with respect, and agree or disagree with politeness. I've reread
my own post and will try to do the same also.

[View Quote]

Mar 23, 2003, 6:29am

Knowing this person as I do, I've come to decide he's more concerned about
what's happening in the world than he is anti-American. Being American as I
am I happen to have a little more faith in the controls in place in our
government than he might (maybe not as much faith in our current president
as some do though...and I get to say that). To have blind faith just means
you are probably not well informed. I sometimes have my concerns, too. I
think you'd have to be a US citizen to look at things quite the way we do
but one thing about it-you get to have different opinions. I guess it's only
fair that we allow everyone to share his own point of view, and in this case
he was only passing on found information. Now I'm waving my white flag, no
more of this particular AW newsgroup war for me.

[View Quote]

Mar 20, 2003, 9:20pm

Polite comments below.
[View Quote] In an earlier post I said "We're all individuals with our own views and if
we keep it civil and to the point with a reasonably intelligent line of
reasoning, we all should listen and be
listened to with respect, and agree or disagree with politeness. I've reread
my own post and will try to do the same also."

Now, it's too late for "listening to points with a reasonably intelligent
amount of reasoning" because I read it before I knew it didn't fit those
qualifications. It is not to late to disagree with politeness but I find
that impossible for me to do with this post so I will just not say anything
at all. But I request that you use your most vivid imagination about what I
might have said-and multiply it by as high as you can count, or 100,
whichever is greater.

Aug 10, 2003, 5:51pm

> Technically, that account isn't his anymore, since AWI revoked it. Dang,
no
> lawsuit :-P
>
> Actually *proving* it could only be done by AWI themselfes. Lying under
> oath (sp?) seems fairly common in the US now...
>
> KAH

I know this is not part of the subject KAH but no less so than your
statement I will quote below.

Awhile back you said, in reference to some comments made by "theLady"

TheLady said: "Ya'll declared war on me. I don't even have an army. Guess
I'd better get one."

Kah responded: "Okay, this one person is "us all". That's right, makes lots
of sense."

I agreed with you and any comment renouncing statements that lump whole
populations into one common behavioral group (even when a particular
behavior IS a groups common purpose, such as the KKK, a church choir,
pedophiliacs-they all have a distinct personalities aside from that).

So of course I was very disappointed when you said:

Kah: "Lying under oath (sp?) seems fairly common in the US now..."

The dictionary defines common in this instance as meaning: "generally met
with and not in any way special, strange, or unusual. COMMON implies usual,
or frequency of occurrence. Occurring habitually." Something more often done
than not done.

Since you didn't identify a subset of the US population I have to assume you
mean lying under oath occurs frequently among the entire population.
Statistics please. We're not talking about per capita milk consumption or
gum chewing now. I suppose you could prove that kind of thing with
statistics....but lying under oath?

Now KAH, why can't the lady say you are probably one of those who declared
war on her if you can say I probably lie under oath because I am a resident
of the US?

Nov 8, 2003, 9:40pm

I'd take exception to everyone of the totally amazing statements (quoted at
the end of my post) apparently used as facts (but where did the writer find
those facts?) But as for the main topic here, I can't imagine anyone not
seeing it the same way as Jerme and Lioness. If a world is G rated...doesn't
that mean G rated anymore? It should have the lowest common denominator of
what is allowed, just as X should have the highest-or why else have ratings?
Why keep lowering and raising the bar? If it continues, then the statement
made by Linn WILL be true in another 50 years. How desensitized (aptly
phrased by Jerme) can we get, finally? If "shit" is objectionable to even
one in a G-Rated world, then it should be disallowed for all. Go to each
world and say "shit" then stay in the one that allows it, and then say it
all you like, 'til maybe it piles up around your knees :-) But remember, if
you don't want something going on in your world, you have the right to
decide that, too, don't you? Who gets to decide for AWGate? You?

".....Since even a large amount of teenagers (especailly in USA) cannot read
properly, not to mention spell;....."

(Anywhere I look, in anyone's statistics, all the "modernized" countries
could use some work here, but the US certainly isn't on the bottom of
anyone's list. We weren't doing so well, but are improving, at foreign
language skills).

"....or since the school system allows all kinds of words to be said and sex
acts
in schoolrooms...."

(Damn! In all my visits to schools, in several capacities, I missed those
sex acts! Any schools I know anything about, you even have to have a
permission slip from home to participate in single gender sex education
classes or view PG or R rated movies like "The Gladiator" with Russell
Crowe-but these things I'm sure will bring derision, too. If you were being
sarcastic here Linn, then I apologize for taking your seriously. I never
have before.)



"....Damn is not on the list. But the bible beater GK's don't like you
saying it because they're raised to go to church and only the priest can
say damn....."

(Any time I'm in church for a church service we do say damn, hell, and even
Jesus Christ, but in the proper context. The only thing I've ever learned
about saying "damn" is that we cannot actually damn someone to eternal
damnation, nor does the Pastor, Priest or other religious leader. I don't
ever remember of saying shit though, I guess church is too G-rated for that.
Once in a private setting I did hear my Pastor say he was pissed off though.
I guess he is only human.)

[View Quote]

Nov 11, 2003, 5:15am

Well Bowen, using your analogy (don't you just love 'em?) let's say that
AWGate people are only allowed the blandest of diets, it's the entry point
and they don't want anyone to have any bad reactions. (what's accepted for
one isn't necessarily acceptable to another-why take chances?) Bring your
milk with you if you want to but don't pass it around-keep it to yourself.
Go to a PG13 world and drink a little milk if you need it so bad. Now, if
you want to have some Haagen Daz ice cream...you know, like Café Mocha
Frappé or a decadent Chocolate Fudge & Almonds bar, I'm afraid that's pretty
X-rated if you ask me, but well worth the risk of whatever you're risking by
having some (in the proper place). But still, why waste it where it's not
appreciated or accepted by everyone? Have it where people go just for that
purpose and have there own with them and you wont risk being told off.
Unless of course you're doing it on purpose, like seeing how far you can go
until you're booted and then complaining about the unfairness of it all. If
a person has so little control of his language (or diet, or sexual urges or
whatever) that he can't stop himself from doing what's unacceptable in his
present surroundings then that's another problem entirely.

Now, regarding Linn's comments about sex in the classrooms, my guess is most
everyone past kindergarten school knows about it to some degree, knowing
about it doesn't do terrible things to a person like you say and is
something fantastic for them to look forward to and plan for, but allowing
it in the classroom just might have some weird effect on most 5 to 16 year
olds. They see it's an accepted practice by everyone everywhere at any time
and they will become desensitized to it and start doing it at their older
sister's wedding, thereby causing a bad reaction from some people,
especially we pussy USA citizens. Besides, I for one save my worst language
for when I stub my toe in the dark, it's so much more satisfying than using
old, worn out words that I use all the time. They'd become meaningless to me
and I'd risk using them where they aren't meaningless to others.

> Your theory is flawed. If they know the word, saying it is not
> introducing a new idea to their head. They know the word, they know it
> has the meaning it has, saying it does not redfined the words meaning.
> Saying does little else than putting collective thoughts together in a
> coherent manner.
>
> Simply put: A is defined as milk. Charlie knows what milk is and knows
> that A equals milk. Frank says A, charlie assumes Frank has said milk.
> Gatekeeper 121 is lactose intolerant, and bans the word A. Frank says
> A, Gatekeeper 121 ejects Frank, Charlie assumes that milk is the wrong
word.
>
> This is a classic distributive property. Banning the word A does not
> remove Charlie's knowledge of what A is, or what milk is. Therefore
> banning certain does not "ruin" a childs innocence or whatever the
> excuse is. If the person knows the meaning behind the word, they have
> nothing to "ruin," excluding their current ego.
>
> --
> --Bowen--
> http://bowen.homelinux.com
> Give me ideas.
>

Nov 11, 2003, 6:00pm

Well thanks :-), but the thing is, I was only grossly exaggerating, not just
making up a fairy tale. You probably heard about the "Opie and Andy" radio
show out of NYC? And what they convinced a couple to do in St. Patrick's
Cathedral during a church service last August? Check it out if you haven't.
True story.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/popculture020823.html

And speaking of kids in church, one of the many "funny"(?) things I've seen
or heard a kid do in church lately was when a little girl about 2 was mad
and called her mother a "bits". Does it sound the same to you as it did to
me? I don't think she meant AlphaBit Phalpha or that they even ever heard of
AW or I bet the mom would have called for a gatekeeper. There was one GK she
might have tried though, Saint Peter, because I am sure she wanted to die.

As far as the ice cream, I meant every word I said. There are only 2 things
better than Haagen Daz.

[View Quote]

Nov 11, 2003, 7:31pm

Oops, sorry, I guess it was Bitmaster that I've seen sign his posts Bits. It
wouldn't be the first time I've had my S in the wrong place at the wrong
time ;-)

[View Quote]

Nov 11, 2003, 7:32pm

Oh I bet you do know the other one. I said "2 things", not 2 kinds of ice
cream.

[View Quote]

Nov 11, 2003, 8:35pm

Well, I guess you just answered your own question. It symbolizes a bad word
when used in the context that means a bad word. It doesn't have a physical
affect but to some people it has an upsetting affect, which is precisely why
some people find it objectionable. It's a great word for boat rockers, and
that is precisely who uses it. (except for the ones who use it when they
stub their toes in the middle of the night in the privacy of their own
homes).

If you were a postman and needed to deliver a package, would you not pay
attention to the "Beware of Vicious, Man-Eating Dog" sign because it's only
a symbol and can't hurt you? As for what it means in German, I don't speak
German so I guess I'd think it meant just what an English speaking user of
it was saying. Now though, if I hear a German using that word in a
threatening way, I'll duck. Thanks for the tip :-)


> I'm still at a loss for how fuck is a bad word. It just symbolizes a
> slang term, it's real origin means "to strike" from the german word
> frichen(sic?). I don't know about you, but I don't strike many things
> with a certain anatomical part. That's like driving a nail in reverse
> with you eye.
>
> --
> --Bowen--
> http://bowen.homelinux.com
> Give me ideas.
>

Nov 11, 2003, 9:26pm

It's ok, my Eiscreme is being made with milch from now on...I've decided to
take up German after all. How does that strike you?


> Milk is now slang for anal sex, you can now not use anything made of, or
> consisting of milk.
>
> --
> --Bowen--
> http://bowen.homelinux.com
> Give me ideas.
>

Nov 21, 2003, 4:54am

Someone would have had to have gone to the school "the derek" (of the
following post; "nned people to fill this out") was talking about to think
that. One of the first things I remember learning about in school was the
"discovery" of America, the Pilgrims and the first Thanksgiving, the
Revolutionary War and everything about U.S. history and its pre-history.
Unless you meant that in a figurative sense, which isn't the implication I
saw, please back it up with your sources. I'd really be interested in
knowing where these people are who think the world in general didn't exist
before the U.S. did. (Unless they're under 5 or 6 maybe.) Remember, you did
say "most", and were willing to stand by your words.

[View Quote]

Nov 21, 2003, 5:06pm

OK, that one you have right-I am hard headed on some subjects but I couldn't
let it go without saying, I was not attacking your education at all but that
of a person who would think the US was here before the rest of the world.
Didn't you see that? That's not what your point was I know. (Although your
statement was not at all like Lightform's-kind of the opposite.) If you DO
HATE FIGHTING, why say anything that might inflame? Did you not think it
might, saying "most Americans" about anything? I don't talk to hear myself
talk either, I want you to hear me and understand.

I also have thought before that I seem to open my virtual mouth all too
often here, mostly about things seemingly anti-American, but if you'd walk a
mile on my keyboard you'd see why. I started reading these newsgroups
because I have enjoyed AW for quite a few years and even used to spend way
more time than I had in it, but couldn't master the technical side of
it-still can't-and learned a lot in here. I had many friends of different
cultures who helped me there. Instead of things technical, I had worlds
where I and other people built and I had long standing conversational
relationships with them-not confrontational but always fun and satisfying.

Now I have less time, so when I have a chunk of time once a week or so I go
to the NG's to catch up. (or occasionally read them while I'm working on
"work" on my PC, shhhh) I read a lot more that helps me or I find
interesting but often am not knowledgeable enough to add to. I keep telling
myself I'm going to have more time "next week" but don't seem to find it.
Now, the part about "walking a mile..." Part of my work has allowed me (not
alone) to put a little stability into the lives of people who have come on
to hard times. A few-just a few-of these people are immigrants from several
countries. We don't ask if they have been nationalized before we help them.
If it's ever mentioned that they are from elsewhere it's because I enjoy a
good foreign accent. The most recent one was from Scotland. I see what
American's on a grass roots level can do for other Americans, and others. 80
% of the cash we raise is sent overseas. Do I feel bad when someone from one
of those countries slams us? Yes.

My work used to be through the church but it's on a wider scale now. So you
see, or maybe can understand, why I cannot just let it go if I see someone
knocking the church or people who believe in it-or my country-just because
it is the U.S (I don't recall of seeing the same about other countries
here-are they all 100% perfect? Isn't this strange?). If it was the
occasional remark-and sometimes was about someone else-I sure could live
with it. It's like being married I guess, you sure know your spouse or
significant other has faults but if your neighbor is always cutting on him,
what kind of a partner would you be if you never said a word in his defense,
whether you were in the work place or at a recreational facility? If nothing
said in here is inflammatory about you and yours, you can't possibly
understand.

In my r/l we rarely sit around talking about the US (except where our work
comes in), but if we do, we cover both sides, good and bad.

Interesting read, which I ran across looking up something totally unrelated:

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1018521/posts



[View Quote] > Thanks Lightform, you said it the way I meant it.....I did not say what I
> said to be attacked.....I said it as a general comment.....I do not come
> into these discussions to argue which seems to be the thing most like to
do
> here.....I know Americans are very patriotic, and hate if anyone says
> anything about them but I have never meant offense....I travel alot and do
> meet many different cultures and have always loved americans because of
> their 'hard headedness' LOL.....do not fault me for my beliefs, most of my
> beliefs are from actually traveling 48 of the 50 states in a van, sleeping
> in rest areas, meeting the people of the USA .....Americans do have an
> 'attitude' but that is not all bad.....we all need a little 'attitude' in
> our lives.....Sorry people like Lioness and Carolann and a few others have
> to take everything so litteraly as to attack my education or just open
their
> mouths to hear themselves talk ....I am educated in the ways of school and
> the ways of life.....life being meetng people and getting to know
different
> cultures.....you Lightform seem to be the only one that caught the gist of
> my message......and yes I DO HATE FIGHTING.....so this is last I will say
on
> this subject and Americans in general....since some Americans take offense
> so easily and read things into letters that are not there.....
> thank you
> sweets G
>
>

Nov 21, 2003, 5:08pm

Yep-it was a fantastic reply :-) Wish I would have thought of it. It was
sooo much shorter than mine.
[View Quote]

Nov 21, 2003, 5:24pm

Sure, (pretend to) mute me after presenting your point but not also
listening to mine-what does that tell me? But knowing you really will read
it is enough for me.
[View Quote]

Nov 21, 2003, 4:50am

Maybe you just haven't learned yet that an education isn't injected into you
like some sort of vaccine against illiteracy, you actually have to do part
of it yourself. If you went to the doctor for regular medical check-ups, but
ignored the doctor's advice about taking care of yourself and became
unhealthy, would you say the medical system failed you? You must be between
16 and 22, yet you spelled more than one simple word wrong and had several
capitalization errors in your original post. Was it really the American
(specifically U.S.?) educational system or was it your lazy editing habits?
Your survey seems well thought out and put together, nothing like your
original post under this heading. Was that something you were born knowing
how to do or did your education play a part in that?

[View Quote]

Nov 22, 2003, 6:29pm

Is that for me? Actually, we are saying the same thing about why your
spelling in that post was how it was. More your choice than a lack of good
education. By the way, I filled out your online survey, too, and I thought
it was very good. Some very tough questions for people who would actually be
faced it. Things like that kind of have a way of putting you in someone
else's shoes.
[View Quote]

Nov 22, 2003, 6:57pm

This is funny if you love Seuss, and was just sent to me (written locally)
by someone who knew I would appreciate it because of my widely known (r/l)
feelings (not happy) about the present administration here-yep, it's the way
I feel. I really am open-minded, but still hard-headed and patriotic. And
anyway-I love anything by Dr. Seuess and this could have been his.

How The Grinch $old Christmas!

By Steve Heise with apologies to Dr. Seuss

The Grinch came from Texas, politically lame,
With nothing original, not even his name.
An ivy league oil-man, true son of the south,
Worked his way to the top, silver spoon in his mouth.
Then he stole an election, the results are still stinking
And he had to hire help to do all of his thinking.
The Grinch worshipped power. He bought it with money.
His political poison, he covered with honey.
His programs designed to grow national debt
And still prop-up his friends in the country club set.
So he cooked up a scheme with the snobs in Who's Whoville.
To punish the workers and the Unions in U-ville.
Abandon the poor let the stock markets fall.
Run the economy into the wall.
His heart and his brain were 2 sizes too small.
Chop social programs! Let's get out the axes!
Pretend that they're just being used to cut taxes.
Then let's pull that same old Republican switch,
We can steal from the poor, and give back to the rich.
Let's hide behind bibles, so they don't smell a rat.
Morality's blind when the profits are fat.
Let's mortgage the future, forget Medicare.
No social security left anywhere.
If we blame a small country, attack just to "free it,"
We can sell out America, and our people won't see it.
Suppliers and weapons put cash in our bag.
We can make a fast profit wrapped up in the flag.
And our friends get the contracts to rebuild Iraq
While the families at home pray their loved ones come back.
We can fill a few wallets, just lift a trade barrier.
We can play dress-up pilot on a big aircraft carrier.
And we cut back on health care and children's hot lunches,
And rake in the dollars, bunches and bunches.
And we won't mention kickbacks or corporate greed,
When we're drilling for oil where the reindeer must breed.
No more Rudolph, Donder or Blitzen or Cupid,
Just Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Cheney and Stupid!
We're losing clean water, there's soot in the breeze.
We're cutting up parks and we're cutting down trees.
Still we war against terrorists, war against drugs,
But we never make war against corporate thugs.
The Grinch never collared those Enron Execs,
'Cause his friends were all in on it, clear up to their necks.
Then the Grinch fired the elves, to make toy profits steeper,
"Here's children and prisoners, they'll work a lot cheaper!
Grind the minorities, keep them all nervous,
Make sure they stay hungry and eager to serve us.
Shift jobs overseas, hide the profits off shore,
Reduce women's rights til they aren't anymore."
That's how the Grinch sold our Christmas, without any feeling,
Families starving, economy reeling.
Three million jobs ... They fade out of sight,
So tell me how comfortable you'll sleep tonight.
The Grinch still has no brain, his hearts still too small.
And if we don't replace him ... then God help us all.

Nov 22, 2003, 9:34pm

Well, it's because A: I thought it was funny and have heard & shared several
funny Seuss knock-offs, political and otherwise, and even wrote a couple
myself. I love that stuff. And B: to show I am not completely blinded by the
flag, but can still be loyal to it. But also C: it isn't a criticism for a
change (well, at least not of anyone in here.)

[View Quote]

Nov 23, 2003, 7:17am

No it shouldn't because I am not either of those. I don't hate Bush at all,
just not who I think is good for us (or US), or others, either. An opinion,
not a total disrespect for the man. But otherwise I am entirely apolitical,
no party affiliation at all, patriotic but yet not blinded by it, (honest).
I sure don't claim to be an expert, just interested as a citizen, my duty
and right to be that. I thought the poem was funny, cleverly done, and at
least partly true. Most won't be interested in my opinions but the poem was
still funny, so I shared it like it was shared with me. I've shared lots of
poems with lots of people. What's the bad part?

[View Quote]

Nov 23, 2003, 6:03pm

So sorry you feel that you only have those two choices. :-(
[View Quote]

1  2  3  4  5  6  |   Order by default