John Wayne

"Gene Cottrell" wrote in message
...
I certainly wouldn't put John Wayne above guys like Stewart for his effort
during WWII. I just hate how people try to re-write history to fit their
warped views. John Wayne's deferment history is a matter of record and he
tried, unsuccessfully to bypass that deferment. Unable to do so, he spent 3
months in the Pacific trying to boost the moral of the men. He was nearly
universally loved by the GIs and did indeed punch out a couple of GIs in
bars who questioned why he was deferred. He never backed down from a fight.
He tried to get into the Naval Academy when he got out of high school -
doesn't sound like a draft dodger to me. I'd like to see some proof that
he asked for a deferment - proof, not some 'blog' by a guy named Cecil.
This crap about John Wayne kind of shows that guys like Dan Rather, have
been making up stories a lot longer than was publicized. Of course they
won't confess to it unless they're caught red handed, and you left-handed
wingnuts eat it up.

Another dumbass self-inducted into the hall of fame.

Wolfgang
who knows that free entertainment shouldn't be this good.

"Gene Cottrell" wrote in message
...
I certainly wouldn't put John Wayne above guys like Stewart for his effort
during WWII. I just hate how people try to re-write history to fit their
warped views. John Wayne's deferment history is a matter of record and he
tried, unsuccessfully to bypass that deferment. Unable to do so, he spent
3
months in the Pacific trying to boost the moral of the men. He was nearly
universally loved by the GIs and did indeed punch out a couple of GIs in
bars who questioned why he was deferred. He never backed down from a
fight.
He tried to get into the Naval Academy when he got out of high school -
doesn't sound like a draft dodger to me. I'd like to see some proof that
he
asked for a deferment - proof, not some 'blog' by a guy named Cecil. This
crap about John Wayne kind of shows that guys like Dan Rather, have been
making up stories a lot longer than was publicized. Of course they won't
confess to it unless they're caught red handed, and you left-handed
wingnuts
eat it up.

Gene


Gene, you sound like a Marxist-Leninist slut. Why are you such a Communist?
America is the greatest country in the world, yet you hate it so much. Why
Gene, Why? If you were born a Communist you would have to eat only rotten
potatos. Yet the good old USof A feeds you steak? Why do you hate this
country so much? Why Gene, Why? Is it Vodka they promised? Or maybe a sable
fur hat? Communism is bad Gene, don't fall for their tricks.

Dave
Proud Anti Communist

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 15:21:30 -0400, daytripper
wrote:

Though you'd think he'd prefer leaving his identity at least a shadow of a
secret, he just can't resist grabbing that mantle, every time ;-)

I hide from no one, you cheap monkey.

Come on up. BIG salmon - 22 and 25 inchers, as well as some very big
brookies in the 20-22 inch range. Of course you will have to ask
someone what they're hitting on, prolly have to have that person tie
the fly on for ya. And show ya where to cast it. You still have that
fly rod you cheated Gehrke out of? What a cheap, no good ******* you
are, Tatosian.

d;o)

"Gene Cottrell" wrote in message
...
I certainly wouldn't put John Wayne above guys like Stewart for his effort
during WWII. I just hate how people try to re-write history to fit their
warped views. John Wayne's deferment history is a matter of record and he
tried, unsuccessfully to bypass that deferment. Unable to do so, he spent 3
months in the Pacific trying to boost the moral of the men. He was nearly
universally loved by the GIs and did indeed punch out a couple of GIs in
bars who questioned why he was deferred. He never backed down from a fight.
He tried to get into the Naval Academy when he got out of high school -
doesn't sound like a draft dodger to me. I'd like to see some proof that
he asked for a deferment - proof, not some 'blog' by a guy named Cecil.
This crap about John Wayne kind of shows that guys like Dan Rather, have
been making up stories a lot longer than was publicized. Of course they
won't confess to it unless they're caught red handed, and you left-handed
wingnuts eat it up.

Gene

For my part, I find it amazing that, supposed, grown men can get all worked
up over dead people. I couldn't care less if John Wayne had saved Audey
Murphy from the sights of Germany's own version of Sgt. York. Is a Marine
who saves the lives of his fellow Marines on one day a hero, if he is
convicted of murdering innocent civilians a week later? Is any service
person a patriot, just for having served in a war? Are the generals who
don't speak out against an unjust war, for fear of what it might do to their
careers, patriots? Is the anti-war protestor any less a patriot, if he
feels that his protestations might help to end a war sooner and save the
lives of his country's service people, as well as innocents?

The "Duke" was a great actor in my eyes, regardless of his lack of military
training. Whether he was a *patriot* is in the eyes of the beholder. As I
have stated on many occasions, my *patriotism* is likely defined very
differently from that of others. I don't consider every Tom, Dick or Harry,
who served in the military--regardless of war-time or peace-time--to be a
patriot. I certainly don't consider a man to be a patriot, simply because
he is POTUS! To me a patriot could be an Audey Murphy type or they might be
an anti-war protestor.

Op --Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel (look up Samuel Johnson,
for context)--




"David Snedeker" wrote in message
...

.......SNIP....
Again, why do you defend this second rate actor, John Wayne, this
blowhard
phony whose deferment history is a matter of record, when there are
people,
like Jimmy Stewart and Henry Fonda etc., of various political
persuasions
whose service is both extraordinary and documented? For example, if Im
not
mistaken, Stewart did the full complement of daylight missions in B-17s
over
Germany and survived, unlike over 50k other USAAF air crew. Fiction is
great, but real is, after all, real.

Dave

David Snedeker wrote:
wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

If its something about me being a lib, well I see myself as of the
progressive persuasion but I wouldn't call myself (nor do the people who
know me call me) a "liberal." For example Im with Buchannon on
immigration
and H1b and H2b, bi-lingual ed is not me (although I study other
languages),
Im opposed to rampant Federalism, deficit spending worries me, I see
NAFTA
and much of globalization as a disaster, just to name a few of my
non-lib
empty pigeon holes.

And Ideology really does suck.

Except yours apparently. :-)

Come on, read the two sections together.....the one where you set out
the aspects of your personal ideology and the one that says that
ideology sucks......I just know you can do it this time.

GOOOOOO DAVE!!!!!
- Ken

Look, you labeled me as a "liberal." I just pointed out some illustrative
inconsistencies in that label. We have different understandings of the
meaning of the word "ideology." Ive studied a few ideologies (specifically
Marxism-Leninism, Italian Fascism, German Nazism, Christian Socialism,
Argentine Radicalism, Mexican Revolutionary Institutionalism, Cuban
Communism, Roman Catholicism, Communist Internationalism, Trotskyite
Communism, American Liberalism, American Conservatism, American Federalist
Extremism, etc..)

I would liken your understanding of the term ideology as similar to the
"common" understanding of the term "theory" which is held by folks who have
a problem with the teaching of evolution as the theory which underpins
modern biology. And I would guess that according to your understanding, just
about everyone who has ideas, beliefs or attitudes, also has an "ideology" .
. . by your lights.

Oh, he's coming close to getting it.......


Its OK by me if thats where your understanding rests, and so I don't really
expect that the next "clue" will change anything. However . . . one could
start by thinking about the difference between deductive logic, and
inductive logic. An ideology starts with the conclusion and fits the
observations, and then the actions. A system for alternative thought
experiments that might be useful in exploring the particular, has yielded
mostly horror when it comes to the task of guiding nation states.

......and then he loses it. People come by their ideologies through
various means. Either taught directly by their parents, teachers,
peers
or through interactions in their world. Your ideology opposes "rampant
Federalism". Someone who supports a socialist ideology would
support "rampant Federalism"....but probably wouldn't label it as such.
Assuming that people with a "bad ideology" come to it through a means
other than how you came to yours simply illustrates a small mind on
your part.

No matter how you try to justify it to yourself, your ideology sucks
to someone else just as much as theirs sucks to you. Understand this
and you might have actually learned something about yourself.
This is the reason why I can get along with KenF and DaveL while
adamantly disagreeing with much of each of their personal ideologies.
They both believe what they believe for their own reasons, but
they accept that others believe differently.

Your ideology sucks just as much as everyone else's does.
- Ken

" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Snedeker wrote:
wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

If its something about me being a lib, well I see myself as of the
progressive persuasion but I wouldn't call myself (nor do the people
who
know me call me) a "liberal." For example Im with Buchannon on
immigration
and H1b and H2b, bi-lingual ed is not me (although I study other
languages),
Im opposed to rampant Federalism, deficit spending worries me, I see
NAFTA
and much of globalization as a disaster, just to name a few of my
non-lib
empty pigeon holes.

And Ideology really does suck.

Except yours apparently. :-)

Come on, read the two sections together.....the one where you set out
the aspects of your personal ideology and the one that says that
ideology sucks......I just know you can do it this time.

GOOOOOO DAVE!!!!!
- Ken

Look, you labeled me as a "liberal." I just pointed out some
illustrative
inconsistencies in that label. We have different understandings of the
meaning of the word "ideology." Ive studied a few ideologies
(specifically
Marxism-Leninism, Italian Fascism, German Nazism, Christian Socialism,
Argentine Radicalism, Mexican Revolutionary Institutionalism, Cuban
Communism, Roman Catholicism, Communist Internationalism, Trotskyite
Communism, American Liberalism, American Conservatism, American
Federalist
Extremism, etc..)

I would liken your understanding of the term ideology as similar to the
"common" understanding of the term "theory" which is held by folks who
have
a problem with the teaching of evolution as the theory which underpins
modern biology. And I would guess that according to your understanding,
just
about everyone who has ideas, beliefs or attitudes, also has an
"ideology" .
. . by your lights.

Oh, he's coming close to getting it.......


Its OK by me if thats where your understanding rests, and so I don't
really
expect that the next "clue" will change anything. However . . . one
could
start by thinking about the difference between deductive logic, and
inductive logic. An ideology starts with the conclusion and fits the
observations, and then the actions. A system for alternative thought
experiments that might be useful in exploring the particular, has
yielded
mostly horror when it comes to the task of guiding nation states.

.....and then he loses it. People come by their ideologies through
various means. Either taught directly by their parents, teachers,
peers
or through interactions in their world. Your ideology opposes "rampant
Federalism". Someone who supports a socialist ideology would
support "rampant Federalism"....but probably wouldn't label it as such.
Assuming that people with a "bad ideology" come to it through a means
other than how you came to yours simply illustrates a small mind on
your part.

No matter how you try to justify it to yourself, your ideology sucks
to someone else just as much as theirs sucks to you. Understand this
and you might have actually learned something about yourself.
This is the reason why I can get along with KenF and DaveL while
adamantly disagreeing with much of each of their personal ideologies.
They both believe what they believe for their own reasons, but
they accept that others believe differently.

Your ideology sucks just as much as everyone else's does.
- Ken


Ken, you confound two different things (at least). Of course everyone can be
said to have a set of attitudes, opinions and beliefs (AOBs), arrived at
thru experience, education and even indoctrination. And you are choosing to
see these as "ideologies" (although you hedge a bit by sometimes appending
the word "personal"). And so by your lights I guess we could call each of
these "ideologies" as "Kenism," "KenFism," DaveLCism" etc., etc, ad nausea.

So since you seem immune to understanding that there is a more specific use
of the term, beyond this notion of personal "Kenisms," I have to wonder how
you account for something like "Conservatism." Do you imagine it was the
creation of a "Charley Conservative"? Shortened in time to "Conservatism?
Hey, they oftentimes say, Marxist-Leninism, instead of just Communism. So
in "Kenism" is something like, say the ideology of Argentine Radicalism,
just an expansion of the personal AOBs of some individual(s) named something
like Juan Radical? How about Western European Socialism? Anarcho syndicalism
anyone? Dialectical Materialism? Are they a part of the same set as "Kenism"
or "Daveism." Nope.

Sorry, the Ideologies I say suck, are those broad band systems of thought,
worldview, and conclusions, which seek to subjugate experience, observation
and experiment (to a greater or lesser degree) to conformity with
pre-determined conclusions.

Dave
Ideology is the enemy of experiment

David Snedeker wrote:

Gene, you sound like a Marxist-Leninist slut. Why are you such a Communist?
America is the greatest country in the world, yet you hate it so much. Why
Gene, Why? If you were born a Communist you would have to eat only rotten
potatos. Yet the good old USof A feeds you steak? Why do you hate this
country so much? Why Gene, Why? Is it Vodka they promised? Or maybe a sable
fur hat? Communism is bad Gene, don't fall for their tricks.

Splork Vang Mu.

wrote:
JR wrote:

You need to go to Blockbuster and check out the old "blaxploitation"
flicks Coffy and Foxy Brown, and the more recent Quentin Tarantino film
Jackie Brown.

I, on the other hand, am going to resist like hell trying to find a copy
of Pinky and the Brain....

I suspect you feel the same about P&tB as I feel about most
Tarantino films.

I don't know.... Jackie Brown is a far cry from the Kill Bill films, or
even from Pulp Fiction.

As for me, I might *like* Pinky and the Brain.... but I'd prefer to keep
thinking of Pam Grier as hotter than a two-dollar pistol and not as the
voice of an animation....

(fantasies can be surprisingly delicate constructs)

daytripper wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 12:28:36 -0600, rw
wrote:

Feel the comraderie.


lol!

And a real nice rise, dontcha think?

Though you'd think he'd prefer leaving his identity at least a shadow of a
secret, he just can't resist grabbing that mantle, every time ;-)

He's just out there, lurking, waiting for someone to refer to an odious
****tard, which he knows is him-own-self.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

wrote:



This is the reason why I can get along with KenF ... while
adamantly disagreeing with much of [*his] personal ideologies.
[he] believe[s] what [he] believe[s] for [his] own reasons, but
[he] accept[s] that others believe differently.


yeah, right. ...try believing in something as benign as top-posting. g