[Grovenet] An interesting view of a legacy . . .

Walt Wentz waltw at teleport.com
Sun Feb 10 15:15:07 PST 2008


So could I!
Walt
>I could agree with that!
>Ed
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Steven
>   To: Forest Grove local interests list
>   Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 11:13 AM
>   Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view of a
>legacy . . .
>
>
>   And this is all the republicans problem?
>   Free trade, illegal immigration are two big
>issues for me and both sides of
>   the isle are party to the problems. Wages are
>depressed due to an influx of
>   slave labor. We have falsely reported inflation
>as well.
>   It is time to ask not what your country can do
>for you. We each need to
>   stand up for ourselves. Not expect a handout
>from uncle.
>   The super rich include democrats.
>   We can agree on the issues that corporate law
>has given us.
>   I would wish that we could just dump the entire
>bush and clinton families
>   from our country and get back to where we don't
>define ourselves by our
>   divide but by our agreements.
>
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com
>[mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com]On
>   Behalf Of Walt Wentz
>   Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 10:28 AM
>   To: Forest Grove local interests list
>   Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view of a
>legacy . . .
>
>
>   Steve:
>   For "substantive content," one has only to look
>at the current news.
>   Ordinary working Americans are losing jobs,
>savings and hope; the
>   phrase "living income" has apparently become an
>obscenity, never to
>   be spoken in the circles of power; The
>super-rich, and those
>   "artificial persons" known as corporations, have
>come to monopolize
>   the vast majority of the nation's wealth, and
>that percentage is
>   increasing every day, with the active connivance
>and assistance of
>   the present administration (read: "permanent tax
>cuts;") while the
>   sons and daughters of  our working poor (which
>will soon mean most of
>   us, given current trends), having no other hope
>of ever improving
>   their lot through higher education, are
>enlisting in an apparently
>   endless war, hoping that they will emerge from
>service alive and with
>   brains undamaged for the sake of the mere
>pittance for "educational
>   assistance" which has replaced the old G.I. Bill
>that made our
>   country great.
>   Substantive content? Our supposedly
>"conservative" government, far
>   from maintaining its cherished old "existing
>views, conditions or
>   institutions" regarding small government, fiscal
>responsibility and
>   noninterference, has been borrowing and spending
>like a drunken
>   sailor, building up a national debt which will
>crush our descendants
>   for generations to come. The future of our
>economy is now at the
>   mercy of foreign governments which have to real
>reason to wish us
>   well... China, Saudi Arabia, other nations who
>hold trillions in US
>   dollars in their national treasuries, and who
>could  collapse the
>   American  economy like a house of cards merely
>by releasing a flood
>   of those dollars on the international market.
>   Substantive content? Osama bin Laden is still
>alive, free and
>   inspiring another generation of jihadists, six
>years after our
>   present administration swore vengeance and swift
>victory;
>   Afghanistan, which was supposed to become a free
>and law-abiding
>   nation,has instead produced all-time record
>crops of opium last year,
>   resulting an actual over-supply of heroin for
>the world's crime
>   syndicates and drug addicts, while the Taliban
>are back, striking
>   down agents of change and their own people
>apparently at will, while
>   their own casualties are replaced by more
>jihadists flowing through
>   the lawless tribal areas of our supposedly brave
>and loyal ally,
>   Pakistan. Despite all the encouraging propaganda
>from our
>   administration, one has only to read the news
>from the BBC and other
>   foreign services to realize Afghanistan is
>rapidly becoming a "failed
>   state," a chaotic collection of drug fiefdoms
>and mutually hostile
>   tribes, sects and clans, ruled by brutal
>warlords and Taliban
>   zealots-- all this because our present
>administration decided to
>   divide our forces for a fraudulent and utterly
>irrational invasion of
>   Iraq, a nation that had been so badly defeated
>and disrupted it could
>   not defend its own borders against its own
>neighbors, let alone the
>   US Army.
>   More than five years after "Mission
>Accomplished," we are still
>   there... pushing a determined and resilient
>"insurgency" from one
>   part of the country to another but never
>actually defeating it, while
>   the weak puppet government we installed engages
>in endless mutual
>   backstabbing and thievery, and billions of
>American reconstruction
>   dollars continue to flow into a bottomless black
>hole of corruption,
>   and both Iraqis and Americans continue to die-- 
>despite the
>   triumphant announcements when "fewer" die  in a
>given month than in
>   another.
>   Substantive content? (Expletive deleted!) The
>world is echoing with
>   "substantive content," while our supposedly
>"conservative"
>   administration continues to mouth political
>slogans, tries to
>   distract us with "God, guns and gays" and
>attempts to scapegoat those
>   problems they cannot ignore or deny onto illegal
>immigrants-- that
>   is, the economic refugees fleeing the
>devastation wrought by our own
>   "free-trade" agreements with their home
>countries.
>   Sorry if I seem angry and overheated. I am
>ordinarily of an
>   idealistic and optimistic nature, but the
>"substantive content" of
>   our present situation would be enough to
>infuriate a statue.
>   Walt
>
>
>
>   >Walt,
>   >
>   >
>   >And , likewise, liberal propogandization has
>changed the definition of
>   >conservative from " tending or disposed to
>maintain existing views,
>   >conditions, or institutions,  marked by
>moderation or caution"  to
>   >   " reactionaries, bigots, chickenhawks and
>the assorted other frauds
>   and
>   >fakers. "
>   >
>   >I wish both sides would just grow up and limit
>discussions to substantive
>   >content.
>   >
>   >
>   >Steve
>   >
>   >
>   >----- Original Message -----
>   >From: "Walt Wentz" <waltw at teleport.com>
>   >To: "Forest Grove local interests list"
><grovenet at rdrop.com>
>   >Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 9:51 PM
>   >Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view of
>a legacy . . .
>   >
>   >
>   >>  >Walt,
>   >>>
>   >>>So, you are saying that " reactionaries,
>bigots, chickenhawks and the
>   >>>assorted other frauds and fakers " are
>exclusively conservative?
>   >>
>   >>  Nope. Only that suchlike have hijacked the
>"conservative" label.
>   >>  Meanwhile, through 30 years of sustained
>propagandizing, they have
>   >>  managed to change the label of "liberal"
>from its dictionary
>   >>  definition of "generous, tolerant, free," to
>"crazy criminal-coddling
>   >>  commie-lovin' tax-and-spend treasonous
>sinners."
>   >>
>_______________________________________________
>   >>  GroveNet mailing list
>   >>  GroveNet at rdrop.com
>   >>
>http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>   >>
>   >
>   >
>   >_______________________________________________
>   >GroveNet mailing list
>   >GroveNet at rdrop.com
>   >http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>   _______________________________________________
>   GroveNet mailing list
>   GroveNet at rdrop.com
>   http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>   _______________________________________________
>   GroveNet mailing list
>   GroveNet at rdrop.com
>   http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>_______________________________________________
>GroveNet mailing list
>GroveNet at rdrop.com
>http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



More information about the GroveNet mailing list