Guess Who's Planning to Shine Lasers on Pilots

More importantly, I think that there's some truth to the general gist of
Churchill's comments. His point was that we are ALL complicit in the
origin of terrorism. Terrorists didn't just appear out of nowhere. As
awful as their tactics are, their motivations are related to our
demonstrably unfair and in some cases highly disruptive meddling in Middle
Eastern affairs. Inasmuch as we as Americans continue to tolerate our
government's paternalistic and selfish behavior in the Middle East, we are
just as guilty as our government itself.

You know, Peter, I can't decide which is worse: Having a person in academic
authority like Churchill teaching this kind of tripe to our youth, or having
a relatively intelligent member of our society like you exercising moral
relativism (on such a grand scale!) in defense of an indefensible position.

Hell, I don't believe in God most days, but even I can tell right from
wrong. Blaming the victims in the World Trade Center for being complicit in
their own deaths is just so incredibly wrong, I don't even know were to
start. How can anyone possibly argue with someone who has absolutely no
moral belief system whatsoever? There's nothing to push against, or for.

I'll say this about it, though: Your post better illustrates everything
that is wrong with the Left, and its "nothing is black and white in a gray
world" philosophy, than anything I could have ever said.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:e9HSd.16228$4D6.7303@attbi_s51...
[...]
I'll say this about it, though: Your post better illustrates everything
that is wrong with the Left, and its "nothing is black and white in a gray
world" philosophy, than anything I could have ever said.

And your post (and John's) simply affirms exactly what I said would happen.
Thank you very much for proving my point.

You're probably too old for you to ever get over the "Left versus Right"
mentality. If you haven't done it by now, you probably never will. But
suffice to say, it's not a useful way to think about things.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:e9HSd.16228$4D6.7303@attbi_s51...
[...]
I'll say this about it, though: Your post better illustrates everything that is wrong with the Left, and its
"nothing is black and white in a gray world" philosophy, than anything I could have ever said.

And your post (and John's) simply affirms exactly what I said would happen. Thank you very much for proving my point.

You're probably too old for you to ever get over the "Left versus Right" mentality. If you haven't done it by now,
you probably never will. But suffice to say, it's not a useful way to think about things.

Pete


You know, it is kind of interesting. It used to be everything Red was bad, and there was no blue, it was just USA...

"Peter Duniho" writes:

You're probably too old for you to ever get over the "Left versus Right"
mentality. If you haven't done it by now, you probably never will. But
suffice to say, it's not a useful way to think about things.

I don't think age is the factor for being unable to see different
viewpoints (let alone accept some). Rather, it's intellectual
isolation; perhaps a fear, akin to religionists, that a new idea may
upset one's belief system. You might find out that everything you
thought you knew, you didn't.

Anyway, thanks for pointing out the uselessness of "left vs. right",
a.k.a. us vs. them, good vs. evil, right vs. wrong. Binary choices
are good for digital computers and little else.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message


And your post (and John's) simply affirms exactly what I said would
happen. Thank you very much for proving my point.

No, Pete, you're just being as obstinate as you're accusing us of being.

Specifically, what did you personally do that deserved the deaths of over
3000 people? Then tell me what *I* did (since you claim to know me well
enough to include me in the "all of us" you mentioned).

This isn't about Left/Right, Lib/Con. It's about you being an ass.

You want to talk about particular policies of the US and how they may be
justified or not, let's talk. There's certainly room for discussion. Start
accusing me of being complicit in the attack on the USA and you're doing
nothing but picking a fight - and you damned well knew it or you wouldn't be
saying "you proved my point". You remind me of somebody standing in front
of the news cameras putting fire to an American flag "in protest" then
complaining of intolerance when somebody crosses the street to plant a boot
up the burner's ass.

Most reasonable people don't like being poked in the eye then being told
*they* are the intolerant ones after they break the finger doing the poking.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"John T" wrote in message
m...
[...]
Specifically, what did you personally do that deserved the deaths of over
3000 people?

What part of "Do NOT construe any of my comments as condonement of the
terrorist
activities" are you having such a hard time comprehending? Are those words
really that big? Maybe you should get a dictionary?

No one *deserves* an attack like those that took down the WTC towers. But
to sit there dumb and happy thinking that it was completely out of the blue,
motivated by nothing that Americans have done, that's just ostrich-think.

Pete

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:e9HSd.16228$4D6.7303@attbi_s51...
You know, Peter, I can't decide which is worse: Having a person in
academic authority like Churchill teaching this kind of tripe to our
youth, or having a relatively intelligent member of our society like you
exercising moral relativism (on such a grand scale!) in defense of an
indefensible position.



"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or
democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and
knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial
and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so
that security and liberty may prosper together."

---- President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican), 1961.



You give our youth way too little credit. They can read President
Eisenhower, they can read Ward Churchill, they can listen to President Bush,
and they will do their own research to reach closer to the truth. If it is
indeed tripe, if the position is indefensible... it won't take that long for
it to be abandoned by the students. Try to suppress an idea, no matter how
obnoxious, and it raises their suspicion that you have something to hide.

You may brainwash a few to one ideology, and you may brainwash a few to
another, but the vast majority will make up their own mind quite well.

The term "Academic authority" may be applicable to a 10-year-old, but I
doubt very much that your average University student holds ANY prof as being
"authority", especially in political and social disciplines.

"Icebound" wrote in message
...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:e9HSd.16228$4D6.7303@attbi_s51...
You know, Peter, I can't decide which is worse: Having a person in
academic authority like Churchill teaching this kind of tripe to our
youth, or having a relatively intelligent member of our society like you
exercising moral relativism (on such a grand scale!) in defense of an
indefensible position.



"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or
democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert
and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge
industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and
goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

---- President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican), 1961.



You give our youth way too little credit. They can read President
Eisenhower, they can read Ward Churchill, they can listen to President
Bush, and they will do their own research to reach closer to the truth.
If it is indeed tripe, if the position is indefensible... it won't take
that long for it to be abandoned by the students. Try to suppress an
idea, no matter how obnoxious, and it raises their suspicion that you have
something to hide.

You may brainwash a few to one ideology, and you may brainwash a few to
another, but the vast majority will make up their own mind quite well.

The term "Academic authority" may be applicable to a 10-year-old, but I
doubt very much that your average University student holds ANY prof as
being "authority", especially in political and social disciplines.




I know this adds nothing to the discussion, but I just have to say great
post!

Michael

("Icebound" wrote)
snip
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or
democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert
and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge
industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and
goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

---- President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican), 1961.


It is my understanding that Ike wanted to use the term
Congressional-Military-Industrial Complex (or something similar) but was
talked out of it. It was the critical role Congress plays, in that
corrupting process, that Eisenhower was warning future generations to be on
guard against.

Again, it is my understanding that the gist of the threat was gutted when
'Congressional' was removed from the text.

Also, I seem to recall that Ike wrote a fair amount of that speach himself.


Montblack

"Icebound" wrote in message ...

You give our youth way too little credit. They can read President Eisenhower, they can read Ward Churchill, they can
listen to President Bush, and they will do their own research to reach closer to the truth. If it is indeed tripe, if
the position is indefensible... it won't take that long for it to be abandoned by the students. Try to suppress an
idea, no matter how obnoxious, and it raises their suspicion that you have something to hide.

You may brainwash a few to one ideology, and you may brainwash a few to another, but the vast majority will make up
their own mind quite well.

The term "Academic authority" may be applicable to a 10-year-old, but I doubt very much that your average University
student holds ANY prof as being "authority", especially in political and social disciplines.




You've got that right!