[Grovenet] been around before, but what can ya rxpect from an OleHoss?
Ed Davie
edavie at verizon.net
Fri May 16 15:35:36 PDT 2008
Well said, Jeff!
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Howden
To: 'Forest Grove local interests list'
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] been around before,but
what can ya rxpect from an OleHoss?
> From: Alan Domenghini
>
> Letter from one "Angry Woman"
>
> I don't know who wrote it but She should have
signed it.
She probably couldn't find the courage to own it
so chose the way of the
anonymous coward.
> Some powerful words.
Powerful? Aggressive, yes. I wouldn't consider
them powerful. They
certainly don't move me towards her position.
If anything, they move me
away from her position. I find them
reprehensible. Lacking a fundamental
value for human life and disturbingly devoid of
rationality. Her reality is
of a world where coins have one side, all
streets go in one direction, and
what's good for the goose is *not* good for the
gander.
> This woman should run for president [...]
She already is. Her name is John McCain. For
the sake of all things
reasonable, I hope we don't put someone with
this antiquated mentality back
into the White House.
> It's too bad that more Americans don't express
> themselves as she does.
I hope more Americans express themselves with as
much (or more) passion, but
with none (or hopefully less) of the poison.
> "Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we?
We are not and have not been. It was an excuse
to make a play for oil.
Even the most staunch of war supporters are
admitting that now. To think
otherwise is to be stuck permanently in 2002 and
clueless to what has been
brought to light since then (though many saw the
writing on the wall even
before we illegally invaded Iraq under
completely false, fabricated, and
felonious claims).
> Was it or was it not started by Islamic people
who
> brought it to our shores on September 11,
2001?
It was members of Jihadist organization
Al-Qaeda. What religion they claim
to connect with is irrelevant. They simply use
the teachings of the
religion they claim to follow to justify their
actions (whether it's based
on flawed, fanatical interpretations of that
religion or not). It's really
no different than what extremist (or,
regrettably not so extremist in some
cases) members of Christianity or Catholicism
have been doing all along as
well. That's the key though. The people
responsible for 9/11 were
extremists or fanatics and not at all like what
a "typical" Islamic believer
is like.
This woman would do well to educate herself on
what Islam really is. Of
note is that it's one of the largest religious
in the world boasting nearly
2 billion followers, second only to
Christianity. Perhaps she knows this
and feels threatened by that. If so, is Hindu
at third with nearly 1
billion followers on the verbal chopping block
next? Maybe she'll just wait
until she's spoonfed something by the media
linking it to something
anti-American first. Then, like a starving
tiger in wait, she'll pounce and
tear into something else she doesn't really
understand or know anything
about.
Some would content that it was started by us
when we helped bin Laden in his
fight against the Russians with training,
weapons, and funding.
> And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the
> Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked
American
> soldier kicked it or got it wet?...
>
> Well, I don't. I don't care at all.
Then, by that same token she should not care if
the same were to be done to
her bible.
> I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns
> himself in and repents for incinerating all
> those innocent people on 9/11.
The first rational words so far. That's not
enough though. There are
plenty here, in our very country, that should
own up to their crimes against
humanity under the guise of protecting our
country or defending our
freedoms.
> I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in
the
> Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible,
the
> mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi
Arabia
I do not understand the leap of logic used to
arrive at the conclusion that
a country's religious freedoms (or lack thereof
in the case of Saudi Arabia)
immediately equates them to fanatics. Yes, they
do things differently
there. Yes, they do not believe the same things
we do. Yes, some of the
things they require of their citizens seem
outlandish and downright wrong
from our perspective. Does that make them
Islamic fanatics? Just because
we believe differently means they're absolutely
wrong and must change to
suit us? Hasn't this sort of butting our noses
into others' business not
worked so well for us in the past?
If she cared half as much about the mess in her
own yard as she does about
the mess in others, she *might* have room to
lobby some complaints.
> I'll care when these thugs tell the world they
> are sorry for chopping off Nick Berg's head
while
> Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed
throat.
An "I'm sorry" is not sufficient for this act.
They should each face
execution; should we ever find them. The
reality of that is unlikely.
> I'll care when the American media stops
> pretending that their First Amendment
liberties
> are somehow derived from international law
> instead of the United States Constitution's
Bill
> of Rights.
Huh?
> In the meantime, when I hear a story about a
brave
> marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to
obtain
> information, know this: I don't care.
Is she going to give the same leeway to a member
of an "enemy" when they
"rough up" an American to obtain information?
> When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked
Iraqi
> prisoners who have been humiliated in what
amounts
> to a college-hazing incident, rest assured: I
> don't care.
Nevermind that college-hazings are frowned upon
because of the damage
(physical, mental, emotional, or worse) they can
cause. What if she had a
child in college that was forced to endure this
sort of humiliation and have
photos of it all over the news and Internet?
Would she still be so quick to
dismiss it?
> "If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under
God,
> then we will be a nation gone under." Also
by..
> Ronald Reagan
Interesting! Taken in a general sense, this
isn't really any different than
the beliefs put into practice through Saudi
Arabian law. The only major
difference is that they mandate a single,
specific religion while this quote
simply implies Christianity or some "acceptable"
derivative. Maybe it's
just me, but I've never really bought into the
bulk of Reagan's
classic-Republican "slippery slope" ideologies
that are often quoted.
> "A simple way to take measure of a country is
to
> look at how many want in.. And how many want
out."
Many that are motivated to get in do so not out
of belief that the country
is so great, but rather out of some sort of
self-serving goal to have more,
do more, etc. The fact that these self-serving
motivations are more easily
sought in a particular country has nothing to do
with that country's
"greatness".
In closing, this woman is a mental midget. She
practices the same
proof-texting to justify her beliefs as the
militant, fanatical members of
Al-Qaeda do to justify theirs. She cherry-picks
religious, political, and
media bits that suit her position and uses them
to justify her opinion,
whether they would actually support it or not if
taken in context. She uses
the apathetic words "I don't care" to make a
point. However, what she's
really saying is this is why I hate. She's just
too much of a coward to put
away the mask of apathy and call it like it is.
If she was truly apathetic,
she wouldn't have the energy or passion to write
any of this drivel.
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
More information about the GroveNet
mailing list