WWIII beckoning?

Apparently another holocaust is just around the corner in Iran:
' "The world should not ignore this," said Rabbi Hier. "The world ignored Hitler for many years -- he was dismissed as a demagogue, they said he'd never come to power -- and we were all wrong." '

Except that this time, it's very well possible Hitler may HAVE the bomb.

18 comments:

  1. The hyperlink doesn't work.

    Is it to the "yellow star" story that turned out to be false?

    Harper looked like an ass jumping on that bandwagon too soon.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yep that's the one.

    And as to Harper jumping on the bandwagon too soon - so did I, and most of the press by the looks of it.

    A collective "D'oh!" is in order I think.

    ReplyDelete
  3. World War III is a possibility, but not because of Iran. Too many countries would be ready to pounce on them - mainly the US and Israel - if they made even the slightest offensive gesture. I think their leader is more interested in staying in the news and keeping oil prices high to squeeze the west for every penny he can get than to risk a real confrontation. And the Russians and Chinese are cheering them on from the sidelines. World War III is more likely to start from a competition for energy resources than an Iranian bomb... or so I think. Anyway, I enjoyed checking into your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Glad to see your retraction on the "yellow Star" propaganda, Jason.

    Reflecting on the comment from MyView, I have this as a counter comment:

    World War III is a possibility, but not because of Iran. It is a possibility because the USA (and Israel cheering them on from the sidelines) seems determined to launch another war of aggression.

    As for energy resources, namely oil, it is possible that the "have nots" may seek to take oil by force from the "haves" or at least subjugate the "haves", as is happening in Iraq right now.

    But even if Iraq is the opening salvo in WW3 it isn't just about oil. War is a money making scam. Always has been and always will be.

    Beware the military industrial complex. Tired cliche but sage advice.

    By the way, oil is not as scarce as the USA government, and the oil corporations it seems to represent lately, would like us to believe. The tar sands deposits in Canada and a few other places are huge and at current per barrel prices also economically recoverable.

    Mr. Bush continues to go on about reducing the USA's dependancy on foreign oil, namely Middle Eastern foreign oil, but neglects to mention that a large portion of the oil the USA imports comes from Canada.

    How about energy conservation? Why doesn't Mr. Bush, or Mr. Harper for that matter, talk about that? Because they are not interested in energy conservation? Only energy consumption?

    ReplyDelete
  5. ... one more thought about the possibility of WW3.

    Recently, couple days ago, Russia announced that it will, in June 2006, begin trading OIL in transactions that will be denominated in the ruble.

    Historically, it should be noted that shortly before the USA invasion of Iraq, that Iraq had been demanding payments for it's oil in Euros.

    Iran also has plans to open a trading bourse for oil and denominate the transactions in currencies other than US dollars.

    Venezuela and Norway have also discussed similar ideas.

    The point being that the US dollar monopoly on oil transactions and reserve surrency status is in jeopardy. Until recently oil transaction have been denominated in US dollars which are underwritten by something like 8 trillion dollars of debt and which become more worthless everyday.

    The Russian ruble as a petro-ruble is a proverbial "shot across the bow" of the USA in economic terms.

    War is economic as well as militaristic.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Iran has not attacked anyone for hundreds of years. Despite the slander and lies from many western media sources, neither Arhmadinejad nor any Iranian leader has threatened Israel or anyone else with violence. They have in contrast to the USA fullfilled their obligations under the NPT, and there is NO evidence they are attempting to build nuclear weapons.

    Obviously with the belligerance and actual threats, being directed towards Iran by the USA which has a grim history of unprovoked aggression against other nations who refuse to bend over to be f*cked by uncle sam, the Iranians would be crazy as bats to not now be seeeking Nuclear Weapons as fats as they can.

    I would have no problem trusting Iran with a few Nuclear Weapons, as said they are a historically sensible people. Despite having been provoked beyond measure by the USA since 1953, they have done little to harm the USA in return.

    Now as for trusting Israel, that nasty little terrorist nation with about 200 nuclear weapons, and no membership of the NPT, that is a whole other kettle of fish.

    Anyone who knew anything outside of the dog food you get fed on the MSM, realised straight away that the story about Iran requiring the Jews and other minorities to wear identification, al la Nazi Germany, was complete Neo-con claptrap.

    The informed could have told you straight away even if the mullahs had ever suggested such a thing, the Iranian people would have had something to say about something like that. So many westerners fail completely to comprehend the true nature of the people they so blithely carp on about, as if they knew anything.

    The average Muslim fundamentalist is little different in their nature than the average Christian fundamentalist and they are both a far cry from the Jewish fundamentalist which is a truly nasty creature. All the Abrahamic religions are pretty crook if the truth be known. They are harsh desert religions, with a common ancestry.

    How many western self appointed pundits even realise that Muslims have a great reverence for Jesus Christ and expect him to return one day?

    Really, considering how the anti war crowd showed such care and restraint when first observing the Jesse Macbeth video, despite the the premature excitement from right wing bloggers, should be a lesson to all those conservative nuts who believe anything which reinforces their preconceptions without hesitation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. By the way, Dave speaks truly.

    The wars of the USA apart from being at the behest of the Zionist lobby, are mostly about maintaining the hegemony of the US dollar balanced against the more important and overriding goal of controlling the world energy resources.

    In the end though it seems hard to believe the maniacs ruling the show are not aware they are going to tip off an apocalypse. They seem determined to do just that actually. Could they really be devils?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm replying to these comments here, and I honestly hope not to have any more comments about the "Zionists" anymore...

    "World War III is a possibility, but not because of Iran. It is a possibility because the USA (and Israel cheering them on from the sidelines) seems determined to launch another war of aggression."

    Let's keep in mind that Israel is a small island of democracy in the sea of dictators. Also, keep in mind that Iran has publicly mused ABOUT WIPING ISRAEL OFF THE MAP.

    I'm thinking you would be cheering for other countries to attack an enemy like that if you were in a similar situation.

    " As for energy resources, namely oil, it is possible that the "have nots" may seek to take oil by force from the "haves" or at least subjugate the "haves", as is happening in Iraq right now. "

    That argument presumes that we will still be using oil by that point as our main energy source. I doubt it.

    "But even if Iraq is the opening salvo in WW3 it isn't just about oil. War is a money making scam. Always has been and always will be."

    This comment I have a real problem with. A "money making scam"? Surely wars have been started for economic concerns before, but I hope you would agree that sometimes war's have been fought for very good reasons.

    "Beware the military industrial complex. Tired cliche but sage advice."

    You're right, a VERY tired cliche. But I think that comment was always a misinterpretation of the truth: Beware the State.

    The State is the real enemy of the people - not some messed up concept of evil "corporations"...

    Corporations don't like war. War means less profits. Trust me on that one.

    "By the way, oil is not as scarce as the USA government, and the oil corporations it seems to represent lately, would like us to believe. The tar sands deposits in Canada and a few other places are huge and at current per barrel prices also economically recoverable."

    So first you're saying that oil will cause WWIII... Then you're saying that oil isn't as scarce the "USA" and "oil corporations" would have us believe?

    "Mr. Bush continues to go on about reducing the USA's dependancy on foreign oil, namely Middle Eastern foreign oil, but neglects to mention that a large portion of the oil the USA imports comes from Canada."

    But oil prices are based on world prices, which are affected by what happens in the middle east. Just look at how OPEC affects world oil prices.

    Again I don't know what you're getting at here.

    "How about energy conservation? Why doesn't Mr. Bush, or Mr. Harper for that matter, talk about that? Because they are not interested in energy conservation? Only energy consumption? "

    First you say that we have an oil crisis, then we don't.

    Now we have an energy crisis?

    You need to make up your mind buddy.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Iran has not attacked anyone for hundreds of years. Despite the slander and lies from many western media sources, neither Arhmadinejad nor any Iranian leader has threatened Israel or anyone else with violence. They have in contrast to the USA fullfilled their obligations under the NPT, and there is NO evidence they are attempting to build nuclear weapons."

    HORSE MANURE. Forgive the language, but horse manure.

    Here's the evidence:
    http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46EE-A4B5-A3CE0E9957EA.htm

    I think "wiping Israel off the map" is a threat wouldn't you?

    And as to Iran not pursuing a nuke, let's wait and see... Because just as Pakistan and India realised - the atom bom is the ultimate equalizer.

    "Obviously with the belligerance and actual threats, being directed towards Iran by the USA which has a grim history of unprovoked aggression against other nations who refuse to bend over to be f*cked by uncle sam, the Iranians would be crazy as bats to not now be seeeking Nuclear Weapons as fats as they can."

    First you say there is no evidence that they are building nukes, then you say that they every reason to do so?

    Make up your mind, do you believe Iran is building nukes or not?

    "I would have no problem trusting Iran with a few Nuclear Weapons, as said they are a historically sensible people. Despite having been provoked beyond measure by the USA since 1953, they have done little to harm the USA in return."

    No violence against the USA? What about the Iran Hostage Crisis?

    Read:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

    "Now as for trusting Israel, that nasty little terrorist nation with about 200 nuclear weapons, and no membership of the NPT, that is a whole other kettle of fish."

    You're right, Israel has been known for it's suicide bombers isn't it?

    "Anyone who knew anything outside of the dog food you get fed on the MSM, realised straight away that the story about Iran requiring the Jews and other minorities to wear identification, al la Nazi Germany, was complete Neo-con claptrap."

    Was it really? Is it really outside the realm of possibility?

    Especially given the story of Haik Hovsepian Mehr?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haik_Hovsepian_Mehr

    "The informed could have told you straight away even if the mullahs had ever suggested such a thing, the Iranian people would have had something to say about something like that. So many westerners fail completely to comprehend the true nature of the people they so blithely carp on about, as if they knew anything."

    I can't offer any comments on that, I don't know Iranians and have never been in Iran. I can only go by what I can read.

    The question is: do YOU?

    "The average Muslim fundamentalist is little different in their nature than the average Christian fundamentalist and they are both a far cry from the Jewish fundamentalist which is a truly nasty creature. All the Abrahamic religions are pretty crook if the truth be known. They are harsh desert religions, with a common ancestry."

    That's sounds like a personal opinion to me. We will have to agree to disagree.

    "How many western self appointed pundits even realise that Muslims have a great reverence for Jesus Christ and expect him to return one day?"

    Except that Jesus, to Muslisms, is just a prophet. And they defer to their religion first, before ever consulting anything Jesus said.

    If they actually read the Gospels, they'd realise their aint no wiggle room for him to be just another "prophet."

    "Really, considering how the anti war crowd showed such care and restraint when first observing the Jesse Macbeth video, despite the the premature excitement from right wing bloggers, should be a lesson to all those conservative nuts who believe anything which reinforces their preconceptions without hesitation."

    Talking about reinforcing preconceptions, I'm sorry, but you seem plenty full of them.

    PS - if you make comments like you did before about the "Zionist Lobby," you can expect never to be allowed to comment on this blog ever again.

    Sorry, but those comments are just going to far. This isn't a site for anti-semitic rants.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Jason - David here. That's quite a response to my post. Thank you. I will keep my answers to your questions as concise as possible as I don't want to clog up your blog too much. I don't really like the method of rebuttal we are using, breaking up paragraphs and ideas into individual sentences and phrases, and then going back and forth. Too much repitition and it starts to lack clarity, as you may see, but since you responded this way I will do the same, this time. It will be best if you re-read your comment to get the context correctly and then read this response. I put all your words in italic text followed by my responses in regular text.

    "I'm replying to these comments here, and I honestly hope not to have any more comments about the "Zionists" anymore..."

    I never brought up Zionists. Rabbit did, talk to him. I did mention Israel cheerleading the USA briefly though as you noted when you said this:

    "Let's keep in mind that Israel is a small island of democracy in the sea of dictators. Also, keep in mind that Iran has publicly mused ABOUT WIPING ISRAEL OFF THE MAP."

    Israel is a democracy, yes. And keep in mind that the USA has allied itself with dictators as well. Also my understanding was that Iran's president, Mr. Ahmadinejad, suggested Israel and it's occupants be moved to Europe and Palestine be returned to the Palestinians. And recently, I read an article on Haaretz and an Israeli politician had countered that Israel could wipe Iran off the map as well. He was reprimanded by his superiors. I think we could agree that there are extremists of every shape size and colour on both sides of any argument.

    "I'm thinking you would be cheering for other countries to attack an enemy like that if you were in a similar situation."

    Hmmm ... maybe. I consider myself a pragmatic pacifist. Violence being the choice of last resort and maybe not even then. What would Jesus do? Sincerely asked.

    "That argument presumes that we will still be using oil by that point as our main energy source. I doubt it."

    By what point? We are using oil now and talking about WW3 possibly being just around the corner. I don't see us building solar powered tanks yet.

    "This comment I have a real problem with. A "money making scam"? Surely wars have been started for economic concerns before, but I hope you would agree that sometimes war's have been fought for very good reasons.

    Hmmm ... wars fought for good reasons? Maybe. Good wars? No. I think what I was getting at was weapons manufacturers having booming business and such.

    "You're right, a VERY tired cliche. But I think that comment was always a misinterpretation of the truth: Beware the State. The State is the real enemy of the people - not some messed up concept of evil "corporations".... Corporations don't like war. War means less profits. Trust me on that one.

    Beware the state works for me too. The thing is our states and corporations hold hands pretty tightly these days. People talk about seperation of church and state, what about seperation of big business and the state? I don't think the concept of the evil corporations is messed up though, more specifically we could say evil people leading corporations. After all, they just found those Enron guys guilty.

    Some corporations do like war. For some corporations war means more profits. Look at the oil companies right now. War and the threat of war have sent oil prices quite high and profits to new records. I already mentioned weapons manufacturers, have you heard of Halliburton? Not only are Halliburton in on the oil side of it but they are like the cooks and bottlewasher brigade for the US Army in Iraq and make a pretty penny at it with no bid contracts.

    "So first you're saying that oil will cause WWIII... Then you're saying that oil isn't as scarce the "USA" and "oil corporations" would have us believe?"

    No. Not at all. Context. Please read what I wrote carefully. Context is very important when you take two points and tie them together. First, I was discussing the previous person's, MyView, opinion about WW3 possibly being kicked off over energy resources. Some countries have the resources or allies that do and others do not, and I said it was a possibility. A possibilty and one of several coexisting confrontational issues ... and then, in the second point that you pulled from later in my comment, I am simply stating that Canada has lots of oil and natural gas too. We sell most of what we produce to the USA.

    But oil prices are based on world prices, which are affected by what happens in the middle east. Just look at how OPEC affects world oil prices.

    I don't know what you are getting at here about world prices and OPEC. What you say is true but in the sentence you referenced when you made this response I am talking about USA oil imports. Most of the oil the USA imports is from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. The US doesn't import that much middle eastern oil. Mr. Bush seems to use middle eastern oil dependancy as a round about means of support for the war effort. Do you see what I mean?

    Then when I asked these questions:

    "How about energy conservation? Why doesn't Mr. Bush, or Mr. Harper for that matter, talk about that? Because they are not interested in energy conservation? Only energy consumption?"

    And then you treated them like assertions :

    First you say that we have an oil crisis, then we don't.
    Now we have an energy crisis?
    You need to make up your mind buddy.


    Again, Jason, I think you are taking some things out of context.

    Show me exactly where I said the words "we have an oil crisis" or "we have an energy crisis" in my comments. You won't find those words in my comments becasue they are your words. Please don't put your words in my mouth.

    I mention energy conservation because it is a good idea and our leaders seem to have little say on the matter except lip service to it. What do you think about energy conservation? was my question and it was a serious one. Considering the price of gas these days I am starting to think it is time to consider getting that motorcycle I have always wanted. At least that is one of the excuses I could use to convince myself.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Wow, sorry for the long post ... and Jason ... I first came here because one of my internet friends stumbled upon your blog doing a search on Cindy Sheehan and wanted me to read your post "Oh No! The Sheehan Strikes".

    I read it, enjoyed it, commended you on it and decided to see what else you had to say, the rest is recent history. I am not here to argue with you or get any hate on.

    I am fairly new to this blogging thing and am enjoying it, learning lots and meeting some interesting people. But if you don't want me bothering you with my comments just say so and I will go along my merry way.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "...I don't want to clog up your blog too much."

    If you read this blog frequently, you'd realise you aint clogging a thing so don't don't worry about it.

    "I don't really like the method of rebuttal we are using, breaking up paragraphs and ideas into individual sentences and phrases, and then going back and forth."

    Such as is life.

    I'd like to be able to create some great composition and dazzle you with my literary genius... But as you can tell I ain no Shakespeare, and I prefer the method of rebuttal here.

    If you don't like it... tough. This is a method used by other bloggers and I can't see a thing wrong with it.

    "I never brought up Zionists. Rabbit did, talk to him."

    Fine. But you did bring "Rabbit" over to my blog. So nevertheless, you associate yourself with him. And if you've noticed, I've replied to his comments as well.

    "...my understanding was that Iran's president, Mr. Ahmadinejad, suggested Israel and it's occupants be moved to Europe and Palestine be returned to the Palestinians."

    hmmmm.... Forced relocation? I hope you don't think that wouldn't require violence...

    "I think we could agree that there are extremists of every shape size and colour on both sides of any argument."

    Agreed.

    Though I hope you would agree, that in Iran's case, it has a history of threats towards Israel of a different magnitude from higher persons in power. Furthermore it has an absolutely atrocicious human rights record persecuting Christians and non-Muslims excessively.

    Israel doesn't imprison and kill Muslims just because they are Muslim. If they did their own people would revolt I would think.

    They even allow a seperatist Arab party to run in elections for their parliamentary legislature. That's a democratic state.

    In Iran's case, where the state has locked up Bishops and attempted to prevent Muslim converts from entering their own Churches - I would hope you would agree that the level of extremism in Iran is significantly higher than in that sole democratic state surrounded by enemies.

    "I consider myself a pragmatic pacifist. Violence being the choice of last resort and maybe not even then. What would Jesus do?"

    I call myself an "Armed Pacifist." We should be peaceful, and war should be rare, but people should be scared like mad of ever trying anything stupid.

    In other words there is no need to throw yourself at the lions when it comes to pacifism. If you see evil, defy and resist it, but don't become it.

    "I don't see us building solar powered tanks yet."

    No, but there are alternative fuel sources already developed that can be easily used in internal combustion engines. That's a whole other discussion, and me being an Engineer, that'll bring us to a whole other rant :-P

    "Hmmm ... wars fought for good reasons? Maybe. Good wars? No. I think what I was getting at was weapons manufacturers having booming business and such."

    No doubt Boeing and Lockheed luck out when it comes to war.

    I was just asking you if you believe that all wars have had "making money" as their sole reasoning?

    "I don't think the concept of the evil corporations is messed up though, more specifically we could say evil people leading corporations. After all, they just found those Enron guys guilty."

    The point is that Enron didn't get away with it. Evil people never get away with what they do. There's always a "blowback" as far as I'm concerned.

    "Look at the oil companies right now. War and the threat of war have sent oil prices quite high and profits to new records..."

    Yes certain corporations make money on war. But most do not. The economy eventually goes to crap, and by no stretch of the imagination does any corporation want that.

    "Mr. Bush seems to use middle eastern oil dependancy as a round about means of support for the war effort. Do you see what I mean?"

    Yes but your original comment was that Bush used mid-east oil dependancy as a reason to support the war, when the USA doesn't get the majority of it's oil from the mid-east.

    And what I was trying to say, was that it doesn't matter where the USA gets it's oil.

    It's a WORLD oil price, not a South American, or Canadian price. Canadians sell at the going rate for the world, not at a unique price of their own.

    So if, global supply goes down because of the mid-east, then prices for Canadian oil goes up. In that sense we are all "dependant" on mid-east oil.

    That's what I was trying to get at there. But again I'm no Shakespeare, so I apologize I could have made that clearer.

    "Show me exactly where I said the words "we have an oil crisis" or "we have an energy crisis" in my comments. You won't find those words in my comments becasue they are your words. Please don't put your words in my mouth."

    I didn't "put" any words into YOUR mouth.

    If you have a problem with the way you communicate your ideas, then guess what - THEY ARE YOUR PROBLEM.

    Sometimes I can't communicate what I want to say myself. I even screw up on more than one occasion. It's ok - I'm human. But don't go blaming other people for a miscommunication.

    You didn't say to whom you were replying to any of your comment. That's the benefit of extracting quotes and replying to them line by line - that way you know what the poster is talking about.

    It appeared as if, out of nowhere, you were talking about the scarcety of energy sources that could cause WWIII...

    "As for energy resources, namely oil, it is possible that the "have nots" may seek to take oil by force from the "haves" or at least subjugate the "haves", as is happening in Iraq right now. "

    ...then you started talking about how oil wasn't as scarce as Bush was making it out to be...

    "By the way, oil is not as scarce as the USA government, and the oil corporations it seems to represent lately, would like us to believe. "

    ...then you wondered why Bush wasn't talking about energy conservation.

    "How about energy conservation? Why doesn't Mr. Bush, or Mr. Harper for that matter, talk about that? Because they are not interested in energy conservation? Only energy consumption?"

    How was I "supposed" to interpret these comments? You didn't use the words "energy crisis" but you sure as hell seemed to be talking about one. The scarcety of oil to me IS an energy crisis especially in today's day and age.

    Next time, be clearer, shorter and maybe you might want to try using this format for commenting - especially if you are replying to someone's comments.

    "What do you think about energy conservation? ...Considering the price of gas these days I am starting to think it is time to consider getting that motorcycle I have always wanted. At least that is one of the excuses I could use to convince myself."

    Well you can use plenty of other excuses to get a bike than "energy conservation." :-P

    I don't think energy consumption is neccessarily a "problem." What the problem is, is the effects of energy consumption - smog, pollution etc.

    There is plenty of studying going into alternative energy sources, and fuels and hybrids. The fact is, that as an Engineer, I've encoutered several viable technologies that could be used that would pretty much eliminate the polution that comes from your car.

    So why don't we all use this technogoly? One reason I believe: Price.

    Take for instance the so called "cooking oil" car. They have the technology right now to refine cooking oil into a oil useable in the car you have right now pretty much as is.

    Only problem is that the fuel ends up costing $2/litre from my estimates.

    So my thinking is, that these alternative fuels and energy sources haven't taken off mainly because the price. Which means as soon gasoline prices get high enough - it becomes economically feasible...

    Sorry... that's my rant for the day.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Wow, sorry for the long post..."

    I'm not surprised, I've seen longer.

    "...and Jason ... I first came here because one of my internet friends stumbled upon your blog doing a search on Cindy Sheehan and wanted me to read your post "Oh No! The Sheehan Strikes"."

    Are you sure it's not about you "keeping an eye on me?" Or what about you "...getting me to think more?" What about me being a "sinner?"

    By the way, I didn't quite appreciate that comment you made on Rabbit's blog. It was condescending and uneccessary.

    "I am not here to argue with you or get any hate on."

    Good. Neither am I.

    "...But if you don't want me bothering you with my comments just say so and I will go along my merry way."

    That's very sincere of you. But I don't want or need you to go away. Feel free to comment whenever you want.

    But don't think I'm some sap that's going to snap to at your command.

    So feel free to do comment on whatever you like. The only thing I ask is that you be respectful, and keep things tastefull. If I don't like what you say, I can easily not give approval to your comment.

    That being said I've only had to do that ever twice. And they were not pleasant experiences I can tell you that much.

    See I've realised, there is difference between "turning the other cheak" and becoming someone's beating stick. I will not be someone's beating stick. I will give what generosity I can, but I won't give anything more by choice.

    Anyways, comment away.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thanks Jason.

    I see you have visited Rabbits blog.

    The sinner comments were general, we are all sinners, me at the top of the list. My point, which I have made to Rabbit and others before him, and something I remind myself of often, are to not lash out with hate at someone just because they are diiferent or disagree.

    I wan to think more, don't you. You've made me think about things a little differently, maybe I have had the same effect on you, I don't think it could be otherwise.

    Jason, I don't think you are a sap.

    Please tell me exactly what you felt was condescending. The fact is that with that specific post, you jumped on a propaganda bandwagon, nothing wrong with that, I have done it myself. If I ever do it again I would be thankful to anyone who pointed it out even if I had already realized it myself. My pointing it out was not any judgement on you as a whole, just on that specific issue.

    Truly I am sorry if I hurt your feelings with my words but I stand by them.

    Thanks for the permission to take a poke at you every now and then, I will pat you every now and then too. Feel free to do the same.

    Don't worry. I am respectful if nothing else. And I frequently remind others such as Rabbit to be polite and respectful as well.

    But I am me and he is he and you are you. And we are all together.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I went back to look at what I had written about you on Rabbit's blog.

    If I am keeping an eye on you it is because I found you interesting. Not some judgement about right or wrong.

    I am a sensitive guy too. When people say things that I think are out of line I am not afraid to let them know and I respect and admire you for doing the same.

    Sorry if you took offence at anything but it is an honest assessment. You had mistakenly spread a false story. You acknowledged it and I acknowledged your "d'oh".

    I understand. I have said "d'oh" too. It isn't always easy.

    Jason, I admonished anyone that took the time to visit your blog to be nice!

    Anyways, Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  17. By the way, in case I didn't mention it in the previous comment:

    Good detective work! Was finding my comments about you on Rabbit's blog easy?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ahh ...and now maybe I see.

    Did the word "troll" upset you?

    Sarcasm at it's richest.

    I don't like the word and use it to remind some of their own intolerances.

    You are not a troll, Jason, by any stretch of the definition. Those people I was talking too when I said that know my position and maybe you don't because we have just met. Again I aplogoize for any misunderstanding.

    I have been called a "troll lover" in the same way some people have been called "nigger lover".

    Sorry for the language.

    I have often seen "conservative" people torn apart by "liberal" people, and whatever lables you might like to substitute, for those words. I make it a point to remind people that the prejudices that they accuse others of having are very often their own. Myself included of course.

    I have made it a mission to make people on all sides of any issues to see each other as themselves and NOT as the other.

    Do unto others ... right ...

    Love one another as I have loved you.

    Best advice I know.

    ReplyDelete