04/04 Living with the War, Part 2
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next » | lastletter sent to me.
Posted by: open__mind
Posted on: 2003-04-11 16:31:39
I thought I'd share this letter a Canadian sent to his local MP and forwarded to me.
"As a constituent I feel that I have to inform you that I do not support the US-led invasion of Iraq, and applaud the position taken by our Government in opposing this illegal war.
I realize that this may not be your personal position nor that of your Party leadership, but in truth I believe that this agression by the Bush Administration is unwarranted , unfounded, and is simply agression
for its own sake. It is indicative of a government that has no compassion for the victims created by its acts, no understanding of the history of the peoples that inhabit this region, and no comprehension of the cultures they are in effect destroying. It is also indicative of a nation that believes "might makes right", and that the right to dominate other sovereign countries is theirs through economic and military superiority. . That is more worrisome to me as a Canadian citizen than any threat of terrorism.
Many people refer to our neighbours as our "protectors", and remind us of their role in "winning World War II" and the fight against another evil dictator, Hitler. These persons seem to imply a lack of courage on the part of Canada, and are more concerned by the economic fallout of not supporting the US than the potential losses of human life. It is unfortunate that these persons and our neighbours to the south seem to be unaware of the fact that Canadians were vigorous and courageous in b
Posted by: open__mind
Posted on: 2003-04-11 16:31:39
I thought I'd share this letter a Canadian sent to his local MP and forwarded to me.
"As a constituent I feel that I have to inform you that I do not support the US-led invasion of Iraq, and applaud the position taken by our Government in opposing this illegal war.
I realize that this may not be your personal position nor that of your Party leadership, but in truth I believe that this agression by the Bush Administration is unwarranted , unfounded, and is simply agression
for its own sake. It is indicative of a government that has no compassion for the victims created by its acts, no understanding of the history of the peoples that inhabit this region, and no comprehension of the cultures they are in effect destroying. It is also indicative of a nation that believes "might makes right", and that the right to dominate other sovereign countries is theirs through economic and military superiority. . That is more worrisome to me as a Canadian citizen than any threat of terrorism.
Many people refer to our neighbours as our "protectors", and remind us of their role in "winning World War II" and the fight against another evil dictator, Hitler. These persons seem to imply a lack of courage on the part of Canada, and are more concerned by the economic fallout of not supporting the US than the potential losses of human life. It is unfortunate that these persons and our neighbours to the south seem to be unaware of the fact that Canadians were vigorous and courageous in b
letter continued
Posted by: open__mind
Posted on: 2003-04-11 16:36:14
letter to canadian MP continues:
"It is unfortunate that these persons and our neighbours to the south seem to
be unaware of the fact that Canadians were vigorous and courageous in both World Wars; made - as did Newfoundlanders at Beamont Hamel in WWI- incredible sacrifices; and did so well in advance of American participation in both wars ! In truth, Americans were "Johnny-Come- Latelys" in both Wars! This is historical fact, and no Hollywood revisionist or Washington Spinmeister can change it.
With regard to expressed concerns about the "economic fallout" ascribed to non-compliance with Bush doctrine: I am apalled that members of our governing parties would place commerce and profit before human life.
As for being our "protectors": I do not believe Canada as a nation ever
formally surrendered its sovereignty and right to defend itself to the
United States of America. Nor has it surrendered its right and the right
of its people to hold and voice a different position than that of the American govenment.
If our Government ever does, Canada will cease to be a Nation, and become a Colony."
Posted by: open__mind
Posted on: 2003-04-11 16:36:14
letter to canadian MP continues:
"It is unfortunate that these persons and our neighbours to the south seem to
be unaware of the fact that Canadians were vigorous and courageous in both World Wars; made - as did Newfoundlanders at Beamont Hamel in WWI- incredible sacrifices; and did so well in advance of American participation in both wars ! In truth, Americans were "Johnny-Come- Latelys" in both Wars! This is historical fact, and no Hollywood revisionist or Washington Spinmeister can change it.
With regard to expressed concerns about the "economic fallout" ascribed to non-compliance with Bush doctrine: I am apalled that members of our governing parties would place commerce and profit before human life.
As for being our "protectors": I do not believe Canada as a nation ever
formally surrendered its sovereignty and right to defend itself to the
United States of America. Nor has it surrendered its right and the right
of its people to hold and voice a different position than that of the American govenment.
If our Government ever does, Canada will cease to be a Nation, and become a Colony."
Posted by: ontheway77
Posted on: 2003-04-06 03:00:50
I wonder what your beloved God is thinking about his "thou shalt not kill" commandment these days. I don't remember him ever amending that with "oh, yeah, unless thee shalt kill another."
I really feel sorry for you
Posted by: jkkingjd
Posted on: 2003-04-06 09:25:09
I am sorry but your comments make me want to vomit.
I do not speak for God, neither do you, and I certainly believe GWBush does not. He is fighting an "immoral and illegal war" (quoted from staements of Pope John Paul II).
I certainly trust the Holy Father more than a drinking cocaine junkie, as our President has admitted he at least was (if not is now).
God is not responsible for bush, Thank God (LOL) and please stop wearing your fundamentalist so called Christianity on your sleave. Remember, Osama Bin Laden is a fundamentalist, too.
I am not trying to be holier than thou, but these irresponsible, thoughtless and stupid remarks of fundamentalists must be challenged and brought out into the light for the real stupidity they represent.
Posted by: jkkingjd
Posted on: 2003-04-06 09:25:09
I am sorry but your comments make me want to vomit.
I do not speak for God, neither do you, and I certainly believe GWBush does not. He is fighting an "immoral and illegal war" (quoted from staements of Pope John Paul II).
I certainly trust the Holy Father more than a drinking cocaine junkie, as our President has admitted he at least was (if not is now).
God is not responsible for bush, Thank God (LOL) and please stop wearing your fundamentalist so called Christianity on your sleave. Remember, Osama Bin Laden is a fundamentalist, too.
I am not trying to be holier than thou, but these irresponsible, thoughtless and stupid remarks of fundamentalists must be challenged and brought out into the light for the real stupidity they represent.
thankyou thankyou
Posted by: cokie2
Posted on: 2003-04-09 04:01:37
I agree with you..if God intended to place Bush in the White House (though I always thought he had more important things to do)..then God help us- this man is arrogant, blood-thirsty, without compassion and only wants to help his exceedingly rich friends- how does this make him a "Christian"- it is truly sad how ignorant and yet violent and self-righteous the fundamentalists are.. I pray for all of us
Posted by: cokie2
Posted on: 2003-04-09 04:01:37
I agree with you..if God intended to place Bush in the White House (though I always thought he had more important things to do)..then God help us- this man is arrogant, blood-thirsty, without compassion and only wants to help his exceedingly rich friends- how does this make him a "Christian"- it is truly sad how ignorant and yet violent and self-righteous the fundamentalists are.. I pray for all of us
Read an good books lately?
Posted by: eizeew
Posted on: 2003-04-06 17:04:16
Have you read "Fortunate Son"?
Posted by: eizeew
Posted on: 2003-04-06 17:04:16
Have you read "Fortunate Son"?
(:-0)
Posted by: frisbeedad
Posted on: 2003-04-07 22:06:29
Just when I thought the Republicans couldn't scare me any further. . . .you are some piece of work! The British used to believe their Kings were chosen by God. That's why he had the right to wield his power over the American colonialists. Perhaps the true patriots in this country will have a peaceful revolution in Nov. 2004.
Posted by: frisbeedad
Posted on: 2003-04-07 22:06:29
Just when I thought the Republicans couldn't scare me any further. . . .you are some piece of work! The British used to believe their Kings were chosen by God. That's why he had the right to wield his power over the American colonialists. Perhaps the true patriots in this country will have a peaceful revolution in Nov. 2004.
sad sad people!
Posted by: nienna
Posted on: 2003-04-09 12:13:05
FOR YOUR INFORMATION....G Dubbaya is a TERRORIST! We live with a dictator in our country and the poor little blind sheep....close your little eyes and flollow your heard to slaughter. I LOVE MY COUNTRY..it's THE GOVERMENT and many of the citzens that make me ill!
Quote:
"I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody,dollar-soaked fingers out of the business of these [Third World]nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own.... And if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the "haves" refuse to share with the "have-nots" by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don't want and above all don't want crammed down their throats by Americans."
-- General David Sharp, former US MarineCommandant,1966
Posted by: nienna
Posted on: 2003-04-09 12:13:05
FOR YOUR INFORMATION....G Dubbaya is a TERRORIST! We live with a dictator in our country and the poor little blind sheep....close your little eyes and flollow your heard to slaughter. I LOVE MY COUNTRY..it's THE GOVERMENT and many of the citzens that make me ill!
Quote:
"I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody,dollar-soaked fingers out of the business of these [Third World]nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own.... And if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the "haves" refuse to share with the "have-nots" by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don't want and above all don't want crammed down their throats by Americans."
-- General David Sharp, former US MarineCommandant,1966
Rudy
Posted by: rschob123
Posted on: 2003-04-08 00:11:07
I would like a tighter definition of "helping" the poor. Do you define that as:
A) The US government taking money from one group of people to 'give' to another?
Or
B) Do you define "helping" someone by demonstrating the kind of values, ethics, and determination that is needed in life to survive?
(Let me guess, you pick the first remedy).
Posted by: rschob123
Posted on: 2003-04-08 00:11:07
I would like a tighter definition of "helping" the poor. Do you define that as:
A) The US government taking money from one group of people to 'give' to another?
Or
B) Do you define "helping" someone by demonstrating the kind of values, ethics, and determination that is needed in life to survive?
(Let me guess, you pick the first remedy).
rschob123
Posted by: h_rococo
Posted on: 2003-04-08 00:36:19
the US government takes money from one group of people to 'give' to another all the time. e.g. taking money from the public school people to give to the war. taking money from veteran's groups to give to the war. taking money from health care to give to the war. ever heard of corporate welfare? for every welfare dollar you pay in taxes 13 cents goes to poor families and the other 87 cents goes to bail out failing corporations. i bet, out of the otherside of your mouth you believe in a free-market economy! survival of the fittest! (unless it is an airline or a bank), why not help other human beings, or are you just too alienated from humanity to think that way!?
Posted by: h_rococo
Posted on: 2003-04-08 00:36:19
the US government takes money from one group of people to 'give' to another all the time. e.g. taking money from the public school people to give to the war. taking money from veteran's groups to give to the war. taking money from health care to give to the war. ever heard of corporate welfare? for every welfare dollar you pay in taxes 13 cents goes to poor families and the other 87 cents goes to bail out failing corporations. i bet, out of the otherside of your mouth you believe in a free-market economy! survival of the fittest! (unless it is an airline or a bank), why not help other human beings, or are you just too alienated from humanity to think that way!?
Rococo
Posted by: rschob123
Posted on: 2003-04-10 01:19:57
Uh, so I take it you are voter for answer A): Which is; taking money from one group to give to another by the government is defined as "helping the poor."
I'm not sure where you contrived your figures, but let me assure you that the organizations you named certainly get their fair share of tax money from me too.
Staying on point, however, the federal gov spends about $350 billion a year on welfare programs. There are roughly about 80 different programs under this federal umbrella, one is corporate welfare too. Corporate welfare amounts to about $65 billion each year, not 87% as you state.
You ended your letter with an oxymoron; if I am against any individual welfare program, what makes you think I'm for any corporate program?
BYW; social insurance simply isn't stated as a liberty in our Constitution, a military is. If you can't protect sovereignty you'll end up without corporations or a country. (Charity falls to the people, not the government).
Posted by: rschob123
Posted on: 2003-04-10 01:19:57
Uh, so I take it you are voter for answer A): Which is; taking money from one group to give to another by the government is defined as "helping the poor."
I'm not sure where you contrived your figures, but let me assure you that the organizations you named certainly get their fair share of tax money from me too.
Staying on point, however, the federal gov spends about $350 billion a year on welfare programs. There are roughly about 80 different programs under this federal umbrella, one is corporate welfare too. Corporate welfare amounts to about $65 billion each year, not 87% as you state.
You ended your letter with an oxymoron; if I am against any individual welfare program, what makes you think I'm for any corporate program?
BYW; social insurance simply isn't stated as a liberty in our Constitution, a military is. If you can't protect sovereignty you'll end up without corporations or a country. (Charity falls to the people, not the government).
hi rschob123
Posted by: h_rococo
Posted on: 2003-04-10 02:04:07
well i would have to look back on the "choices" you provided to see what i would "vote" for, but i guess i would certainly be willing to help the poor -- yes of course!
if you want to use your statistics fine, i would like to see them unpacked into the 80 programs, not that i doubt you, i just like lists and am curious -- probably farm aid is on there too.
i didn't see an oxymoron in my message (except the one about "military intelligence" but that was in a different posting).
it is nice that you have made it all on your own, with no help from anybody, and that through the sweat of your own labor and the brilliance of your own mind have managed to make such wealth! most people need employees, teachers, family, and public help for that! now you can live your "one man as an island" life. you've been reading too much ayn rand! unless we start to see "family" as "community" -- as something bigger than what is represented on an 18th c. kinship chart, we are all doomed!
Posted by: h_rococo
Posted on: 2003-04-10 02:04:07
well i would have to look back on the "choices" you provided to see what i would "vote" for, but i guess i would certainly be willing to help the poor -- yes of course!
if you want to use your statistics fine, i would like to see them unpacked into the 80 programs, not that i doubt you, i just like lists and am curious -- probably farm aid is on there too.
i didn't see an oxymoron in my message (except the one about "military intelligence" but that was in a different posting).
it is nice that you have made it all on your own, with no help from anybody, and that through the sweat of your own labor and the brilliance of your own mind have managed to make such wealth! most people need employees, teachers, family, and public help for that! now you can live your "one man as an island" life. you've been reading too much ayn rand! unless we start to see "family" as "community" -- as something bigger than what is represented on an 18th c. kinship chart, we are all doomed!
Rococo
Posted by: rschob123
Posted on: 2003-04-10 12:23:02
You are right. Farm Aid is a welfare program. Not to mention the roughly 80 hand-out programs there under "federal-welfare" are also break down into other programs within the programs. (Government does not work in the most simplest and efficient way).
Your oxymoron was stated when you painted me out to be against "humanity" when it came to hand-outs, but in closing you said that I would probably speak out of the other side of my mouth for corporate hand-outs. If consistency holds, I would be for against any government hand out… Be it to a private citizen, to a bank, to an airline, or to the farmer.
Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand? That is a most brilliant written book I have on my shelf. Did you know that Ayn Rand came to this country from Russia as a teen? Coming from a place where government was the main stay for everything, her philosophy was that government needed to step out of the way, not in the way.
In closing; my success and happiness does not and did not depend on the federal government. And your remark about me living a "one man as an island" life was totally off base too. I, as you, feel that sometimes people do need a guiding hand. We may disagree where the hand comes from. Your contention, it seems, comes from the government. My belief is that we should help each other out as much as possible on an individual bases.
Government says they "care" by taking money (stealing) from some one, the "giving" it to another (taking a
Posted by: rschob123
Posted on: 2003-04-10 12:23:02
You are right. Farm Aid is a welfare program. Not to mention the roughly 80 hand-out programs there under "federal-welfare" are also break down into other programs within the programs. (Government does not work in the most simplest and efficient way).
Your oxymoron was stated when you painted me out to be against "humanity" when it came to hand-outs, but in closing you said that I would probably speak out of the other side of my mouth for corporate hand-outs. If consistency holds, I would be for against any government hand out… Be it to a private citizen, to a bank, to an airline, or to the farmer.
Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand? That is a most brilliant written book I have on my shelf. Did you know that Ayn Rand came to this country from Russia as a teen? Coming from a place where government was the main stay for everything, her philosophy was that government needed to step out of the way, not in the way.
In closing; my success and happiness does not and did not depend on the federal government. And your remark about me living a "one man as an island" life was totally off base too. I, as you, feel that sometimes people do need a guiding hand. We may disagree where the hand comes from. Your contention, it seems, comes from the government. My belief is that we should help each other out as much as possible on an individual bases.
Government says they "care" by taking money (stealing) from some one, the "giving" it to another (taking a
rschob123
Posted by: h_rococo
Posted on: 2003-04-10 14:29:45
ok -- i will admit that my argument had an internal inconsistency, but and oxymoron is when two words seem to contradict each other in a name like "jumbo shrimp".
i feel very happy that i was able to detect your penchant for ayn rand. i know her history but i still think she if a fruitcake who confused nietzsche's philosophy with capitalist ideologies. didn't howard roark in the fountainhead blow up with explosives the skyrise affordable living space he designed when someone else added balconies and ornamentation? his building had to be utterly modernist, to hell with the people who needed the place to live -- yeah, great philosophy. oh, and i love the rape "love scene" with dominique frankin! that's how to get the girl--go in her room, violently rape her, and then go design more steel and glass buildings! rand also wrote a little book called "the virtues of selfishness". objectivism is a nutcase philosophy. 'atlas shrugged" was reagan's favorite book too.
Posted by: h_rococo
Posted on: 2003-04-10 14:29:45
ok -- i will admit that my argument had an internal inconsistency, but and oxymoron is when two words seem to contradict each other in a name like "jumbo shrimp".
i feel very happy that i was able to detect your penchant for ayn rand. i know her history but i still think she if a fruitcake who confused nietzsche's philosophy with capitalist ideologies. didn't howard roark in the fountainhead blow up with explosives the skyrise affordable living space he designed when someone else added balconies and ornamentation? his building had to be utterly modernist, to hell with the people who needed the place to live -- yeah, great philosophy. oh, and i love the rape "love scene" with dominique frankin! that's how to get the girl--go in her room, violently rape her, and then go design more steel and glass buildings! rand also wrote a little book called "the virtues of selfishness". objectivism is a nutcase philosophy. 'atlas shrugged" was reagan's favorite book too.
Rococo IV
Posted by: rschob123
Posted on: 2003-04-13 01:07:15
Oxymoron is a rhetorical figure with contradictory terms. And that's exactly what you did in a round about way when you contradicted yourself on my behalf. Let me spell this out. You claimed I was against "humanity" by not being for government hand-outs to individuals, but I would probably be for corporate bailouts and hand-outs….. This would mean I'm a Conservative/Liberal….. i.e. "Jumbo/Shrimp" as you stated too.
Ayn Rand may have been a fruitcake. I'm not here to stick up for her personally. Nor were her books, "The Fountainhead" or "Virtues of Selfishness", mentioned by me in my previous letter. I had brought up only one of her works, "Atlas Shrugged."
You mentioned absolutely nothing about the philosophy and political tones in "Atlas Shrugged." This book deals with; freedom, efficiency, and competition in the market place. From an economical standpoint, Rand, in this book, is against an artificial-subsidized economy.
Posted by: rschob123
Posted on: 2003-04-13 01:07:15
Oxymoron is a rhetorical figure with contradictory terms. And that's exactly what you did in a round about way when you contradicted yourself on my behalf. Let me spell this out. You claimed I was against "humanity" by not being for government hand-outs to individuals, but I would probably be for corporate bailouts and hand-outs….. This would mean I'm a Conservative/Liberal….. i.e. "Jumbo/Shrimp" as you stated too.
Ayn Rand may have been a fruitcake. I'm not here to stick up for her personally. Nor were her books, "The Fountainhead" or "Virtues of Selfishness", mentioned by me in my previous letter. I had brought up only one of her works, "Atlas Shrugged."
You mentioned absolutely nothing about the philosophy and political tones in "Atlas Shrugged." This book deals with; freedom, efficiency, and competition in the market place. From an economical standpoint, Rand, in this book, is against an artificial-subsidized economy.
rschob123
Posted by: h_rococo
Posted on: 2003-04-13 01:13:11
nice to hear from you! i read all those rand books when i was about 19 and i don't remember much about "atlas shrugged" -- that wasn't the one where the people were trying to bring fire back into civilization was it? oh, that was promethius unbound. (or was that mary shelley?) i think atlas shrugged had a train in it. anyway, i missed you although the IV behind my name makes me feel like a king or a pope! :-)
Posted by: h_rococo
Posted on: 2003-04-13 01:13:11
nice to hear from you! i read all those rand books when i was about 19 and i don't remember much about "atlas shrugged" -- that wasn't the one where the people were trying to bring fire back into civilization was it? oh, that was promethius unbound. (or was that mary shelley?) i think atlas shrugged had a train in it. anyway, i missed you although the IV behind my name makes me feel like a king or a pope! :-)
Rococo V
Posted by: rschob123
Posted on: 2003-04-13 01:38:23
Yes, "Atlas Shrugged" deals with trains, blast furnace steel mills, all the way up to the high society intellectual. In this book, the men of ability go on strike against the ones that treat them as sacrificial animals.
I had to put some sort of numerical figure behind your name. Our list of letters back and forth is almost taking up a whole page on this site!!…LOL. Heck, let's just e mail each other directly. (rschob123@yahoo.com)
I was out for 3 1/2 days on a trip. I fly with a major airline.
Posted by: rschob123
Posted on: 2003-04-13 01:38:23
Yes, "Atlas Shrugged" deals with trains, blast furnace steel mills, all the way up to the high society intellectual. In this book, the men of ability go on strike against the ones that treat them as sacrificial animals.
I had to put some sort of numerical figure behind your name. Our list of letters back and forth is almost taking up a whole page on this site!!…LOL. Heck, let's just e mail each other directly. (rschob123@yahoo.com)
I was out for 3 1/2 days on a trip. I fly with a major airline.
founded on a lie
Posted by: tammyl0013
Posted on: 2003-04-09 08:51:55
Gee, I guess maybe we should go back to our honest and honorable past president. "I did not have sex with that woman." No, he just participated in oral sex as well as other disgusting acts with a cigar. Now that is a mouth that spews honesty don't you think.
Posted by: tammyl0013
Posted on: 2003-04-09 08:51:55
Gee, I guess maybe we should go back to our honest and honorable past president. "I did not have sex with that woman." No, he just participated in oral sex as well as other disgusting acts with a cigar. Now that is a mouth that spews honesty don't you think.
Help
Posted by: utfaun
Posted on: 2003-04-10 00:19:34
Well if everyone thought the way you do across the world; then Hitler would have gotten away with doing what he was trying to do. At that time many countries were extremely poor. Our own family were living on food stamps to get by and yet 5 of my Uncles bravely enlisted and thanks God all returned home safely and without injury. I do realize many lives were lost however how would you have felt if you had been a Jewish person living there and people did not sacrifice things for your life!
Posted by: utfaun
Posted on: 2003-04-10 00:19:34
Well if everyone thought the way you do across the world; then Hitler would have gotten away with doing what he was trying to do. At that time many countries were extremely poor. Our own family were living on food stamps to get by and yet 5 of my Uncles bravely enlisted and thanks God all returned home safely and without injury. I do realize many lives were lost however how would you have felt if you had been a Jewish person living there and people did not sacrifice things for your life!
lies tets talk lies
Posted by: djsemt
Posted on: 2003-04-10 10:23:55
You must be a democrat that believed that THE SO CALLED FORMER PRESIDENT CLINTON WAS TOTALLY PURE AND NEVER DID ANYTHING WRONG...WAIT HE GAVE THE NORHT KOREANS THE NUCLEAR POWER...SCANDALS GALORE AND ROBBED THE COUNTRY OR OUR NATIONAL SECURITY...SO the next time you call a great president a sell out look back on you so called president Clinton....t
Posted by: djsemt
Posted on: 2003-04-10 10:23:55
You must be a democrat that believed that THE SO CALLED FORMER PRESIDENT CLINTON WAS TOTALLY PURE AND NEVER DID ANYTHING WRONG...WAIT HE GAVE THE NORHT KOREANS THE NUCLEAR POWER...SCANDALS GALORE AND ROBBED THE COUNTRY OR OUR NATIONAL SECURITY...SO the next time you call a great president a sell out look back on you so called president Clinton....t
