Jump to content
RemedySpot.com
Sign in to follow this  
Guest guest

Re: Not a Hippie

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

did.

I deleted the posts.

But I am still ashamed to fight for people who scorn my willing to die

for them.

Tom

Administrator

> Tom: " ....... to the defense of disdainful, snobby people like you. "

Somebody put this guy on moderation!

This is the 'definition' of a personal attack!

Rainbow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Thanks for deleting the posts.

I'd just like to quickly reply to a couple of things in it, since I was

asked some direct questions. (Feel free to delete this reply too, if you

wish.)

Tom:

> I have a few questions of my own to ask you:

> Would Sweden have been able to overthrow the Nazis if the US hadn't

landed at Normandy and Russia hadn't moved in from the East?

As a right-wing bully on another list told me once, we'd all be speaking

very good German, no doubt. :-)

But just so that this is clear: I have never said we Europeans are not

greatful for that particular intervention. It's just that it does not

forever after excuse every single war that the U.S. feels like initiating

under ever thinner excuses. I'd like to see some peace and mutual respect in

this world, that's all. From everyone.

> What political ideology would your country be operating under if the

US hadn't kept trying to combat the Iron Curtain economically, and

with the threat of nuclear anhilation?

Sweden was never part of Nato, and thus not under your 'protection'.

> What would the map of southeast Asia look like if we had ignored the

Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor where my great Uncle was blown to

pieces and was picked up by his brother in a basket and brought to

the base mortuary?

I'm very sorry to hear about your uncle. I would have been very upset if

that had happened to an uncle of mine.

Peace?

Inger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

This is how I see it.

If do not stand for something, you most assuredly fall for

everything.

Raven

>

> > Tom: " ....... to the defense of disdainful, snobby people like

you. "

>

> Somebody put this guy on moderation!

>

> This is the 'definition' of a personal attack!

>

> Rainbow

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

- I proudly served 6 years in the AFRES as a aerovac medical

technician. We flew on c 7's and c 130's. Had a great time. I was

not thrilled about the possibility of going to war but would have

done so.Incidentally that is where I met my husband who was a pilot

supporting our unit in aeromed.-- In

, " Rainbow . " <rainbow@...> wrote:

>

> > Inger: " Peace? "

>

> Ahhhh, now isn't that just what being a hippie is/was all about?

>

> Proud to be one,

>

> Let me repeat that I, personally, was drafted into the

Vietnam 'war'

> and filed for Conscientious Objector to War status. I was the

first,

> and probably only, person from my home town to ever have been

granted

> such status. The draft law itself made it clear in a tiny, fine

print

> footnote, on the very bottom of the last page, that if one

believed

> in God, and had a moral objection to violence, one might 'serve'

the

> people of the United States by performing an 'alternative'

service

> that would be in the interest of the health and safety of our

> citizens. I was granted this status, labeled 'C.O.', in light of

the

> fact that, to prove my sincerity, I was already working as an

> Occupational Therapy Aide in a local psychiatric hospital. I

> continued in this position for a full two years, the equivalent

time

> one would have spent in the army.

>

> Rainbow

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

I also believe if a cause is worth dying for it's even better to live

for it :-)

> >

> > > Tom: " ....... to the defense of disdainful, snobby people like

> you. "

> >

> > Somebody put this guy on moderation!

> >

> > This is the 'definition' of a personal attack!

> >

> > Rainbow

> >

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Though I am against war and killing and would not ask you to nor want

you to fight for me nor kill others on my behalf and would prevent it

if I could, I would not scorn it. I would think it was a very

unselfish, honorable thing for you to do and would be profoundly sad

to watch you and others be hurt physically and mentally or not come

back at all. Many of the Vietnam war protestors realized the harm

they caused by scorning the ones who were sacrificed along with

scorning the War itself, and Americans remember that and try to honor

the war victims today.

>

> > Tom: " ....... to the defense of disdainful, snobby people like

you. "

>

> Somebody put this guy on moderation!

>

> This is the 'definition' of a personal attack!

>

> Rainbow

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

I really don't want to keep this thread going but I some things I find worth arguing for/against. :-) I'm willing to leave it when the pro-war faction is.

To the point:

No disrespect to your cousin, but such statements/sentiments as Patton's frankly scare me.

Isn't that other "son of a bitch" more likely a "son of a caring mother" just like yourself? Won't she be as sad to lose him as yours would be? Aren't we all HUMAN? Why do we need to keep KILLING each other?? And then parade it as if it is something to be proud of? I really don't get it. Sorry.

I guess I'm just too naive for this planet. :-(

Inger

Re: Re: Not a Hippie

In a message dated 3/9/2006 3:34:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, julie.stevenson16@... writes:

I also believe if a cause is worth dying for it's even better to live for it :-)

I prefer the way my cousin General Patton looked at it. He told his soldiers, "I don't want you to die for your country, but make that other poor son of a bitch die for his!", or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

*Sigh* I do see your point, but I still can't help feel as sorry for he German soldier's mother as for the American.

Can we let the subject rest now and perhaps talk about something other than killing and war? I'm finding this utterly depressing.

Inger

Re: Re: Not a Hippie

In a message dated 3/9/2006 4:35:59 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, inglori@... writes:

To the point:

No disrespect to your cousin, but such statements/sentiments as Patton's frankly scare me.

Isn't that other "son of a bitch" more likely a "son of a caring mother" just like yourself? Won't she be as sad to lose him as yours would be? Aren't we all HUMAN? Why do we need to keep KILLING each other?? And then parade it as if it is something to be proud of? I really don't get it. Sorry.

I guess I'm just too naive for this planet. :-(

Inger

The point Patton was trying to make was that live soldiers were more important than dead heroes. He wanted his men to fight skillfully and well, but not take undue risks. If the enemy took undue risks, then take advantage of it.

The point other, which you see to addressing, is that, from an American perspective, the fewer grieving American mothers the better. If that meant more grieving German mothers, then that is the way it has to be. Do bear in mind that the Nazis started WWII and the Germans gave Hitler very high approval ratings up through even the invasion of Poland and France. The Nazis also were committing mass genocide everywhere they went. So, lives were well spent stopping them.

However, I did like Winston Churchill's preference, to let the Nazis and Communists bleed each other white and then for the Allies to defeat the weakened winner of that contest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Oooooooooops only just got to this post now - I tend to read in order -

so sorry if I have inadvertendly continued the subject.

>

> *Sigh* I do see your point, but I still can't help feel as sorry for

he German soldier's mother as for the American.

>

> Can we let the subject rest now and perhaps talk about something

other than killing and war? I'm finding this utterly depressing.

>

> Inger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Inger:

The Patton quote (however mangled in actual words, the idea is

correct) is a simplistic view of how to win a war: make it too

expensive for the other side to keep fighting. The ideal situation

(for war) would be inviting all parties involved to a chess game with

high stakes, but where the only deaths are those of the pieces on the

board, and have that determine who wins or loses the conflict. Oh, if

only it were that simple and neat....

>

> I really don't want to keep this thread going but I some things I

find worth arguing for/against. :-) I'm willing to leave it when the

pro-war faction is.

>

> To the point:

> No disrespect to your cousin, but such statements/sentiments as

Patton's frankly scare me.

>

> Isn't that other " son of a bitch " more likely a " son of a caring

mother " just like yourself? Won't she be as sad to lose him as yours

would be? Aren't we all HUMAN? Why do we need to keep KILLING each

other?? And then parade it as if it is something to be proud of? I

really don't get it. Sorry.

>

> I guess I'm just too naive for this planet. :-(

>

> Inger

>

>

>

> Re: Re: Not a Hippie

>

>

> In a message dated 3/9/2006 3:34:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

julie.stevenson16@... writes:

> I also believe if a cause is worth dying for it's even better to live

> for it :-)

>

>

>

> I prefer the way my cousin General Patton looked at it. He told his

soldiers, " I don't want you to die for your country, but make that

other poor son of a bitch die for his! " , or something like that.

>

>

>

>

> FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship,

support and acceptance. Everyone is valued.

>

> Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page

in the folder marked " Other FAM Sites. "

>

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

OK. Thanks for explaining.

I too wish they would fight wars like you suggest. Or just fight them

man-to-man. Bush against Saddam for example.

I really don't see the point in fighting at all since it invariably causes

losses on both sides. Seems like an awful waste to me! I have such a hard

time getting over all the beautiful medieval cities in Europe being turned

to ashes, and all the painstakingly created/collected art & knowledge (e.g.

the library of andria) being lost forever due to this constant warring.

It's just too barbaric for words. :-(

Inger

Re: Re: Not a Hippie

>

>

> In a message dated 3/9/2006 3:34:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

julie.stevenson16@... writes:

> I also believe if a cause is worth dying for it's even better to live

> for it :-)

>

>

>

> I prefer the way my cousin General Patton looked at it. He told his

soldiers, " I don't want you to die for your country, but make that

other poor son of a bitch die for his! " , or something like that.

>

>

>

>

> FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship,

support and acceptance. Everyone is valued.

>

> Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page

in the folder marked " Other FAM Sites. "

>

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Yes I agree with what you have said below and yes I indeed would

stand up for what I believe - but I would still rather live thanks :-

) So far fortunately God has not specifically asked me to die for

him, of which I am quite grateful.

I am not quite prepared to die just yet - if I can avoid it. I want

to know first that my son is okay and has the abilities to deal with

this world - once I know that he will be okay, then I will be less

bothered about leaving him.

Death has never particularly bothered me - as in been dead - the

actual dying bit can be cause for concern within me though - I would

rather a quick death than a drawn out painful lingering kind.

As for Jesus he was perfect and way above any mortal man - I think he

was actually God embodied? Such stuff sometimes confuses me - I think

Jesus was meant to be God in flesh? Am I getting this stuff correct?

What confuses me is that it says God sent his only son - and yet I

thought Jesus was God too? This is where I get confused.

> >

> > I also believe if a cause is worth dying for it's even better to

> live

> > for it :-)

> >

> >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

,

This is one thing where some group back in the 300's A.D. (first

revision in 325, second in 381) decided that " Yeah, that's what we

want to say it is! " and defined God (Christian) according to their

interpretations, in a way that isn't supported in the Bible or logic,

and this is known as the Nicene creed. There is an interpretation

difficulty that they ran into, so they defined that for all practical

intents and purposes, God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost/Spirit

are all the same being, or at least that's how I interpret what

they've said. However, the scriptures and my beliefs indicate that it

isn't that simple and confusing (at the same time) but rather there's

3 separate entities/beings (the Godhead) that are one with each other

*in purpose* and not in body, for further clarification: this is where

a huge amount of confusion happens, is too literal of interpretation

of certain things. To be more precise, the Holy Ghost is a spirit in

form, and at this time, does not have a body: God the Father is

someone with a full body that is eternal; and Jesus Christ is the

oldest spirit child *and* physically conceived son of God the Father,

thus, " God's only begotten son " and before Jesus was on earth in a

physical body that was half immortal and half mortal man, Jesus was

formerly known as Jehovah and The Lord and quite a few other names as

used in the old testament. Jesus is " The Lord " due to His role in the

creation of earth and the universe: because He created and fulfilled

the plan of Salvation, he also was put in charge of creation, and did

that under the direction of God the Father; thus, He organized all

that we know of the physical realm. Where does God the Father come in

for this whole thing? He is the father of our spirits, though not of

our bodies: before something is created in physical form, it is first

created in spirit form: this is the case for every physical thing.

That is, everything has an eternal soul of some form that has both a

physical portion and a portion of spirit, which can be thought of as

real and imaginary components in mathematical terms :P (warning: don't

take that too literally :PPP) As physical matter/energy has always

existed and always will (it would defy the laws of physics to create

or destroy energy/matter, as they can only be transformed from one

into the other) so, too, have intelligences always existed in some

form or another; like the physical body is organized by the various

genetic traits, the various intelligences (like genetic code) have

always existed in some primitive form, which is organized (note that I

don't believe there's anything clearly in the Bible that refers to how

intelligences and spirits came about).

Now, going on personal belief/theory that I don't have a reference to

point to at all in any literature I'm aware of off the top of my head,

(going all-terrain mode here!) I believe that one reason you can't

truly " cure " autism/aspie-ness is because the way our body and spirit

exist together isn't fully understood by science as we know it. My

personal belief is that our physical body (to put things in terms of a

computer analogy) is the hardware, our spirit is the software, and our

brain is purely an interface. What do I base that logic off of? If

we are supposed to remember everything that we have done in our lives,

and be judged accordingly after we're dead, it stands to reason that

(and if you believe in the existence of ghosts, which, if you believe

in the Godhead and the Holy Ghost, seems a logical extension) if the

body is destroyed, all our knowledge would also be destroyed after we

die, or even a large amount would be destroyed with physical brain

damage that didn't kill us. Our knowledge we gain with our mortal

bodies and our spirits forever remains with us, and all the brain

exists to do is to provide a physical interface to our spirit that

allows bidirectional communication between the two, where the exact

organization of the brain determines what we can tune into that is

broadcast from our spirit. If you change the brain, how well you can

tune in your spirit (or that of anything else) also changes, but it

doesn't change what the spirit already knows, whether or not what it

(the spirit) already knows can be reached. So, too, our bodies are

matched to our spirits: thus, our bodies and spirits are matched sets,

and you can't just put any body with any spirit and have it work

correctly for the same reason. By this line of reasoning, there's no

logic to believe that you can " cure " something of an eternal nature:

that of having the spirit of an autie or an aspie, anymore than you

could cure a dog of being a dog, or a cat of being a cat, because

that's what the autie, the aspie, the dog and the cat are,

respectively, in the eternal sense, regardless of how much people

think they should function differently. Thus, you can't put an NT

spirit in an aspie body or the other way around, because they simply

won't interface correctly, if at all.

I suspect this post will create a lot of food-for-thought :)

> > >

> > > I also believe if a cause is worth dying for it's even better to

> > live

> > > for it :-)

> > >

> > >

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

This reminds me of the Christmas Eve cease-fire in 1914 during WWI. I

heard this recently on the radio. They said that the Germans started

singing Christmas songs and the British and French--only 30 feet away

in some cases, peeked their heads above their trenches (a total no-

no) and shouted " Good, old Fritz " " Encore, encore " " more, more " . The

Germans answered, " Merry Christmas, Englishmen " " We not shoot, you

not shoot! " They put candles on their rifles and held them up in the

air to show them to the other side. The English were suspicious at

first because these were the hated 'huns' 'barbarians' and 'krauts'.

It must have been difficult once the dehumanization was erased and

replaced with humanization. How could they go back to shooting

the 'barbarians' after that?

In , " Inger Lorelei " <inglori@...>

wrote:

>

> I really don't want to keep this thread going but I some things I

find worth arguing for/against. :-) I'm willing to leave it when the

pro-war faction is.

>

> To the point:

> No disrespect to your cousin, but such statements/sentiments as

Patton's frankly scare me.

>

> Isn't that other " son of a bitch " more likely a " son of a caring

mother " just like yourself? Won't she be as sad to lose him as yours

would be? Aren't we all HUMAN? Why do we need to keep KILLING each

other?? And then parade it as if it is something to be proud of? I

really don't get it. Sorry.

>

> I guess I'm just too naive for this planet. :-(

>

> Inger

>

>

>

> Re: Re: Not a Hippie

>

>

> In a message dated 3/9/2006 3:34:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

julie.stevenson16@... writes:

> I also believe if a cause is worth dying for it's even better to

live

> for it :-)

>

>

>

> I prefer the way my cousin General Patton looked at it. He told his

soldiers, " I don't want you to die for your country, but make that

other poor son of a bitch die for his! " , or something like that.

>

>

>

>

> FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship,

support and acceptance. Everyone is valued.

>

> Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page

in the folder marked " Other FAM Sites. "

>

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

I read in order, too. Tom said he does too. There's our Aspie

obsessiveness!

> >

> > *Sigh* I do see your point, but I still can't help feel as sorry

for

> he German soldier's mother as for the American.

> >

> > Can we let the subject rest now and perhaps talk about something

> other than killing and war? I'm finding this utterly depressing.

> >

> > Inger

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

" I suspect this post will create a lot of food-for-thought :) "

Yes it has, but since I am not feeling too well do not know how long

I will be able to maintain conversations.

I liked a lot of your analogies - some of the trinity business still

confuses me - maybe when I feel better I will re-read and try get a

better grasp.

" That is, everything has an eternal soul of some form that has both a

physical portion and a portion of spirit,... "

What are anyones ideas/beliefs/explanations on how soul and spirit

differ? What is the difference between soul and spirit?

>

> ,

>

> This is one thing where some group back in the 300's A.D. (first

> revision in 325, second in 381) decided that " Yeah, that's what we

> want to say it is! " and defined God (Christian) according to their

> interpretations, in a way that isn't supported in the Bible or

logic,

> and this is known as the Nicene creed. There is an interpretation

> difficulty that they ran into, so they defined that for all

practical

> intents and purposes, God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy

Ghost/Spirit

> are all the same being, or at least that's how I interpret what

> they've said. However, the scriptures and my beliefs indicate that

it

> isn't that simple and confusing (at the same time) but rather

there's

> 3 separate entities/beings (the Godhead) that are one with each

other

> *in purpose* and not in body, for further clarification: this is

where

> a huge amount of confusion happens, is too literal of interpretation

> of certain things. To be more precise, the Holy Ghost is a spirit

in

> form, and at this time, does not have a body: God the Father is

> someone with a full body that is eternal; and Jesus Christ is the

> oldest spirit child *and* physically conceived son of God the

Father,

> thus, " God's only begotten son " and before Jesus was on earth in a

> physical body that was half immortal and half mortal man, Jesus was

> formerly known as Jehovah and The Lord and quite a few other names

as

> used in the old testament. Jesus is " The Lord " due to His role in

the

> creation of earth and the universe: because He created and fulfilled

> the plan of Salvation, he also was put in charge of creation, and

did

> that under the direction of God the Father; thus, He organized all

> that we know of the physical realm. Where does God the Father come

in

> for this whole thing? He is the father of our spirits, though not

of

> our bodies: before something is created in physical form, it is

first

> created in spirit form: this is the case for every physical thing.

> That is, everything has an eternal soul of some form that has both a

> physical portion and a portion of spirit, which can be thought of as

> real and imaginary components in mathematical terms :P (warning:

don't

> take that too literally :PPP) As physical matter/energy has always

> existed and always will (it would defy the laws of physics to create

> or destroy energy/matter, as they can only be transformed from one

> into the other) so, too, have intelligences always existed in some

> form or another; like the physical body is organized by the various

> genetic traits, the various intelligences (like genetic code) have

> always existed in some primitive form, which is organized (note

that I

> don't believe there's anything clearly in the Bible that refers to

how

> intelligences and spirits came about).

>

> Now, going on personal belief/theory that I don't have a reference

to

> point to at all in any literature I'm aware of off the top of my

head,

> (going all-terrain mode here!) I believe that one reason you can't

> truly " cure " autism/aspie-ness is because the way our body and

spirit

> exist together isn't fully understood by science as we know it. My

> personal belief is that our physical body (to put things in terms

of a

> computer analogy) is the hardware, our spirit is the software, and

our

> brain is purely an interface. What do I base that logic off of? If

> we are supposed to remember everything that we have done in our

lives,

> and be judged accordingly after we're dead, it stands to reason that

> (and if you believe in the existence of ghosts, which, if you

believe

> in the Godhead and the Holy Ghost, seems a logical extension) if the

> body is destroyed, all our knowledge would also be destroyed after

we

> die, or even a large amount would be destroyed with physical brain

> damage that didn't kill us. Our knowledge we gain with our mortal

> bodies and our spirits forever remains with us, and all the brain

> exists to do is to provide a physical interface to our spirit that

> allows bidirectional communication between the two, where the exact

> organization of the brain determines what we can tune into that is

> broadcast from our spirit. If you change the brain, how well you

can

> tune in your spirit (or that of anything else) also changes, but it

> doesn't change what the spirit already knows, whether or not what it

> (the spirit) already knows can be reached. So, too, our bodies are

> matched to our spirits: thus, our bodies and spirits are matched

sets,

> and you can't just put any body with any spirit and have it work

> correctly for the same reason. By this line of reasoning, there's

no

> logic to believe that you can " cure " something of an eternal nature:

> that of having the spirit of an autie or an aspie, anymore than you

> could cure a dog of being a dog, or a cat of being a cat, because

> that's what the autie, the aspie, the dog and the cat are,

> respectively, in the eternal sense, regardless of how much people

> think they should function differently. Thus, you can't put an NT

> spirit in an aspie body or the other way around, because they simply

> won't interface correctly, if at all.

>

> I suspect this post will create a lot of food-for-thought :)

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

More specifically, the group you speak of was known as The Council

of Nicaea.

Many churches use what is called the Nicene Creed which is based on

what was decided at The Council. But most Proterstant Churches,

including mine, the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church, do not take all

of what was resolved at The Council of Nicaea to heart, primarily

because its meeting was political and not religious. The Pope at

that time never attended and thus never officially approved or

disapproved of what was resolved there.

Nevertheless, the Missori Synod Lutheran Church follows some of what

was resolved.

The Nicene Creed as we have it reads thus:

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=3356

Nicene Creed

I believe in one God,

the Father Almighty,

maker of heaven and earth

and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,

the only-begotten Son of God,

begotten of His Father before all worlds,

God of God, Light of Light,

very God of very God,

begotten, not made,

being of one substance with the Father;

by whom all things were made;

who for us men and for our salvation

came down from heaven,

and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin

and was made man;

and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.

He suffered and was buried.

And the third day He rose again

according to the Scriptures

and ascended into heaven

and sits at the right hand of the Father.

And He will come again with glory to judge

both the living and the dead,

whose kingdom will have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Spirit,

the Lord and giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son,

who with the Father and the Son together

is worshiped and glorified,

who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe in one holy Christian and apostolic Church.

I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins,

and I look for the resurrection of the dead

and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Tom

Administrator

This is one thing where some group back in the 300's A.D. (first

revision in 325, second in 381) decided that " Yeah, that's what we

want to say it is! " and defined God (Christian) according to their

interpretations, in a way that isn't supported in the Bible or logic,

and this is known as the Nicene creed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

That's a cute story.

Reminds me of another war story (can't swear as to it's authenticity but

this is what I heard anyway, can correct me if he knows more about

it).

I think it was back in the 1600s, possibly between the German and French. A

battle was scheduled at dawn the next day. But just before dawn a messenger

from one of the sides arrived into the enemy camp with a letter saying that

their soldiers had no clean lace cuffs left, so if they could please

postpone the battle for another day so as to have time to wash them? They

were granted this extra time. To fight in dirty cuffs - unthinkable! How

barbaric!

:-)

Inger

Re: Re: Not a Hippie

>

>

> In a message dated 3/9/2006 3:34:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

julie.stevenson16@... writes:

> I also believe if a cause is worth dying for it's even better to

live

> for it :-)

>

>

>

> I prefer the way my cousin General Patton looked at it. He told his

soldiers, " I don't want you to die for your country, but make that

other poor son of a bitch die for his! " , or something like that.

>

>

>

>

> FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship,

support and acceptance. Everyone is valued.

>

> Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page

in the folder marked " Other FAM Sites. "

>

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

I have no idea. Not familiar with the expression. Perhaps Kate would know.

Inger

Re: Re: Not a Hippie

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 3/9/2006 3:34:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> julie.stevenson16@... writes:

> > I also believe if a cause is worth dying for it's even better to

> live

> > for it :-)

> >

> >

> >

> > I prefer the way my cousin General Patton looked at it. He told his

> soldiers, " I don't want you to die for your country, but make that

> other poor son of a bitch die for his! " , or something like that.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship,

> support and acceptance. Everyone is valued.

> >

> > Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page

> in the folder marked " Other FAM Sites. "

> >

> >

> >

> >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...