I wrote:
> I am only 44 and will have a grandchild early next year. Sadly, the
> mother, my oldest daughter, is just 18 and is not married. More sadly,
> she has become angry at me for reasons I do not understand and actually
> told me that she doesn't want anything to do with me, nor does she wan
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 15:10:10 -0600, "Marc A. Schindler"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hooking his fingers under his armpits and swelling out. "Well, I'm only
> 48 and
> have 1 grand-daughter and another grandchild on the way."
I am only 44 and will have a grandchild early next year. Sadly, the
moth
Dan R Allen wrote:
> Marc:
> I don't believe it was LBJ who got the US into Vietnam -- but rather JFK.
>
> Dan:
> Right. There were approximately 17,000 US troops in Vietnam by the end of
> '63, mostly in either advisory or combat support roles.
> But LBJ definitely escalated that war, first wi
>Most of businesses in this country have policies against employees...
The White HOUSE is also for the President to manage his own personal
affairs. That is where he lives. It seems that some people on this list
don't believe in the right of privacy but think they OWN the lives of
government le
>But that's not the real issue; the issue is that he stood before the
camera
>and lied to us, then stood before a grand jury and lied to them about
that
>affair. That's why he was impeached.
It was an evil investigation brought on by the Gadianton Media. And sorry
to say the people of this count
Marc:
I don't believe it was LBJ who got the US into Vietnam -- but rather JFK.
Dan:
Right. There were approximately 17,000 US troops in Vietnam by the end of
'63, mostly in either advisory or combat support roles.
But LBJ definitely escalated that war, first with the Gulf of Tonkin issue,
an
"John W. Redelfs" wrote:
> After careful consideration, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
> >UN peacekeeping forces are never in a country unless they've been invited in.
>
> Invited in by whom? These nations aren't democracies.
By the two sides. The way it was originally designed, both sides of a con
John:
We seem to forget that only a generation ago we would not have elected a
divorced man, much less a man who is unfaithful to his wife. Ronald Reagan
was the first President that was divorced.
Dan:
Didn't that divorce take place _many_ years before he was elected though?
John:
In my op
Hooking his fingers under his armpits and swelling out. "Well, I'm only 48 and
have 1 grand-daughter and another grandchild on the way." For a while, in fact,
until my own grandmother passed away this last April, my grand-daughter had a
great-great-grandmother (they met on several occasions and we
I don't believe it was LBJ who got the US into Vietnam -- but rather JFK.
"John W. Redelfs" wrote:
> After careful consideration, Gary Smith wrote:
> >I'm no Nixon fan, but actually his goal was to get us OUT of Vietnam
> >(which LBJ got us heavily into) "with Honor."
>
> I don't believe this.
>I most streniously disagree with that. What he does in his bedroom (or
>any other private place) is not our business SO LONG AS IT IS NOT
>ILLEGAL. What he does in his office chair, office, or any other
>government location most definately IS our business. If he engaged in
>illegal sexual acts
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 13:28:47 -0500, "Paul Osborne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Why would it be illegal for Clinton to have an affair in his office? For
> all we know his wife was there too!
First off, it is against the laws of God and the laws (sadly unenforced)
of many states to commit adultery
After careful consideration, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
>UN peacekeeping forces are never in a country unless they've been invited in.
Invited in by whom? These nations aren't democracies. So the people
surely did not invite them. And in many if not most cases the
dictatorships involved are on
>I most streniously disagree with that. What he does in his bedroom (or
>any other private place) is not our business SO LONG AS IT IS NOT
>ILLEGAL. What he does in his office chair, office, or any other
>government location most definately IS our business. If he engaged in
>illegal sexual acts th
After careful consideration, Scott McGee wrote:
>I most streniously disagree with that. What he does in his bedroom (or
>any other private place) is not our business SO LONG AS IT IS NOT
>ILLEGAL. What he does in his office chair, office, or any other
>government location most definately IS our bu
After careful consideration, Wayne and Sandra Riner wrote:
>Well I have 16 and they are the light of my life, I know us southern girls
>do get married young but look at the blessings{:> I`m only 2 years older
>then you John.
You're making me jealous. BTW Elder Riner was transferred about a
we
UN peacekeeping forces are never in a country unless they've been invited in.
Gary Smith wrote:
> I grant you your right to oppose foreign powers from interfering in
> another nation. But then, perhaps Canada should withdraw from the United
> Nations, as they seem to be in a bunch of nations rig
"with honour" is the occidental version of the oriental "saving face."
Gary Smith wrote:
> I'm no Nixon fan, but actually his goal was to get us OUT of Vietnam
> (which LBJ got us heavily into) "with Honor." Withdrawals take time,
> especially when you are trying to prepare the South Vietnamese
On Tue, 15 Oct 2002 18:49:04 -0500, "Paul Osborne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> >Paul I think when Clinton became President of the US that made
> everything he
> >did my business. I also feel that being president he had the
> responsibility
> >to be a good example to me my children and especially m
Well I have 16 and they are the light of my life, I know us southern girls
do get married young but look at the blessings{:> I`m only 2 years older
then you John.
Sandra
> After careful consideration, Jon Spencer wrote:
> Ditto. Except that I surely hope I have no grandchildren yet. I'm old
>
After careful consideration, Gary Smith wrote:
>Yes, our nation tends to concentrate on wars that affect us. Yes, oil is
>a consideration because people like you and me enjoy our cars and
>electricity. However, blaming us for Africa's problems is wrong. Even
>with our vast resources, we don't hav
After careful consideration, Gary Smith wrote:
>I'm no Nixon fan, but actually his goal was to get us OUT of Vietnam
>(which LBJ got us heavily into) "with Honor."
I don't believe this. Do you have evidence? The man was the biggest liar
that ever sat in the White House until Clinton. So how
After careful consideration, Jon Spencer wrote:
Ditto. Except that I surely hope I have no grandchildren yet. I'm old
enough (54), but my oldest is 16, and he is most definitely NOT old enough!
---
Well, I am 57 and have two married daughters. Still no grandchildren. :(
///
I'm no Nixon fan, but actually his goal was to get us OUT of Vietnam
(which LBJ got us heavily into) "with Honor." Withdrawals take time,
especially when you are trying to prepare the South Vietnamese to
continue the war on their own.
How many innocent civilians died in the first Gulf War? Depend
I grant you your right to oppose foreign powers from interfering in
another nation. But then, perhaps Canada should withdraw from the United
Nations, as they seem to be in a bunch of nations right now, with
Canadian forces
If you may recall, we didn't come originally into this position out of
>Paul I think when Clinton became President of the US that made
everything he
>did my business. I also feel that being president he had the
responsibility
>to be a good example to me my children and especially my grandchildren
>Sandra
And one more thing. If the media was responsible you probably
>Paul I think when Clinton became President of the US that made
everything he
>did my business. I also feel that being president he had the
responsibility
>to be a good example to me my children and especially my grandchildren
>Sandra
I can't agree. What he did in the privacy of his bedroom or o
y, October 15, 2002 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: [ZION] Elder Nelson misquoted
> Paul I think when Clinton became President of the US that made everything
he
> did my business. I also feel that being president he had the
responsibility
> to be a good example to me my children and
Paul I think when Clinton became President of the US that made everything he
did my business. I also feel that being president he had the responsibility
to be a good example to me my children and especially my grandchildren
Sandra
> >After careful consideration, Paul Osborne wrote:
> >FWIW-- I to
>After careful consideration, Paul Osborne wrote:
>FWIW-- I too would have lied under oath if I had been hounded over my
>personal sex life. It's nobody's business. Good for Clinton for lying
and
>good for Abraham too.
>---
>
>Comparing Clinton with Abraham is quite a stretch. --JWR
I wasn't
After careful consideration, Paul Osborne wrote:
FWIW-- I too would have lied under oath if I had been hounded over my
personal sex life. It's nobody's business. Good for Clinton for lying and
good for Abraham too.
---
Comparing Clinton with Abraham is quite a stretch. --JWR
/
>After careful consideration, Gary Smith wrote:
>As for your claim that Bush is a Gadianton, just where is your proof?
>>Is proof needed? It is just common sense. The man in the street does
not
>>start wars. Men with wealth and power do. Who has the wealth and
power
>>today? It is Bush and
>We had PROOF that Clinton
>committed the felonies of perjury and obstruction of justice, but our
>Senate acquitted him anyway, making them just as guilty as he was.
FWIW-- I too would have lied under oath if I had been hounded over my
personal sex life. It's nobody's business. Good for Clinto
>I just wish I could know whether or not any of our beloved national
leaders
>intentionally looked the other way while all this was coming down.
I have to believe that any one of our national leaders would have given
their own lives to prevent 911. (Clinton included).
I don't believe the consp
After careful consideration, Gary Smith wrote:
>As for your claim that Bush is a Gadianton, just where is your proof?
Is proof needed? It is just common sense. The man in the street does not
start wars. Men with wealth and power do. Who has the wealth and power
today? It is Bush and compan
After careful consideration, Gary Smith wrote:
>Or are you just reading that into such events? Were the Nephites wicked
>for trying to destroy the Gadiantons? Or were they just not strong enough
>to accomplish it? Perhaps the Nephites were more righteous when they
>allowed the Gadiantons to grow i
>As for your claim that Bush is a Gadianton, just where is your proof?
There is no proof. The President is a descent man. I'm absolutely sure of
it.
Paul O
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or
>We have no right to say evil things about a person, without strong
>evidence. GWBush is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination.
>However, he has not ever shown himself to be an evil man, which is what
a
>Gadianton is.
I agree. And, when was the last time our beloved prophet went to the
w
Or are you just reading that into such events? Were the Nephites wicked
for trying to destroy the Gadiantons? Or were they just not strong enough
to accomplish it? Perhaps the Nephites were more righteous when they
allowed the Gadiantons to grow in power among the Nephites? Let's not
misquote the
I for one would appreciate the research. I may come off sounding like an egghead,
but I'm not the scriptorian half of you are. But I do have a suspicion I know why
all the stories end the way they do, but I'll wait for the results of someone's
research before I venture forth with my idea.
Jon Spe
ose
> to interpret the world in a different manner.
>
> The purpose of this post is to try to state from a high level what my
> perspective is.
>
> Jon
>
> ----- Original Message -
> From: "Marc A. Schindler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTE
>It doesn't matter that President Bush is decent if he is beholden to
>wealthy and powerful special interests. If others are dictating to him,
he
>could be a decent man and still cause great evil to come upon our
nation.
That's a much softer approach, John. I think you will get more mileage
p
I take it, then, that (1) you strongly believe that Bush is controlled by
the rich folks, and (2) those of us who approve of his approach in many
things are also controlled by the rich folks, or are at least stupid enough
to be fooled. (2) is certainly the implication of your statement below.
It
After careful consideration, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
>Funny, but that's what I believe, too. (Well, that he's of our race,
>anyway, and
>I think he's *trying* to be decent, he's just in over his head and is a
>figurehead for more sinister forces [goshdarnit, I'm beginning to sound
>more and
>mo
After careful consideration, Paul Osborne wrote:
>I didn't say anything about the Democrats or anything about those who
>voted for them. I simply implied that I smell something rotten in Denmark
>if hundreds of thousands of LDS people pray for the Spirit's help in
>electing a mass murderer for Pre
perspective is.
Jon
- Original Message -
From: "Marc A. Schindler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: [ZION] Elder Nelson misquoted
First of all, I do not oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein from power --
John W. Redelfs wrote:
> The only time the Nephites pursued the Gadiantons beyond their own borders
> they were militarily defeated. National defense is justified. National
> offense is not. --JWR
I think that this is an assumption on your part, the assumption being that
the mountains in which
Funny, but that's what I believe, too. (Well, that he's of our race, anyway, and
I think he's *trying* to be decent, he's just in over his head and is a
figurehead for more sinister forces [goshdarnit, I'm beginning to sound more and
more like John]).
Steven Montgomery wrote:
> At 05:45 PM 10/13
I understood what you wrote. I was merely pointing out the logical implication of
what you wrote.
Paul Osborne wrote:
> > I cannot agree with this. I see no reason to suspect Bush as a mass
> > murderer. And if this is so; why must I suppose that hundreds of
> > thousands of conservative Latter-
At 05:59 PM 10/13/2002, you wrote:
>At 05:45 PM 10/13/2002, you wrote:
>> > I cannot agree with this. I see no reason to suspect Bush as a mass
>> > murderer. And if this is so; why must I suppose that hundreds of
>> > thousands of conservative Latter-day Saints voted for him after careful
>> > pr
At 05:45 PM 10/13/2002, you wrote:
> > I cannot agree with this. I see no reason to suspect Bush as a mass
> > murderer. And if this is so; why must I suppose that hundreds of
> > thousands of conservative Latter-day Saints voted for him after careful
> > prayer and consideration as directed by th
> I think Bush is a descent guy but I didn't vote for him. I didn't even
> vote.
>
>>That's even worse, imo. It's throwing your freedom back in the faces of
your
>>founding fathers.
I don't care.
Paul O
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GET
> I cannot agree with this. I see no reason to suspect Bush as a mass
> murderer. And if this is so; why must I suppose that hundreds of
> thousands of conservative Latter-day Saints voted for him after careful
> prayer and consideration as directed by the First Presidency. I'm sorry
> John, but i
Paul Osborne wrote:
> >I agree that Saddam is a Gadianton. He is a small one, and Bush is a
> big
> >one.
>
> Gadianton?
>
> I cannot agree with this. I see no reason to suspect Bush as a mass
> murderer. And if this is so; why must I suppose that hundreds of
> thousands of conservative Latter
>I agree that Saddam is a Gadianton. He is a small one, and Bush is a
big
>one.
Gadianton?
I cannot agree with this. I see no reason to suspect Bush as a mass
murderer. And if this is so; why must I suppose that hundreds of
thousands of conservative Latter-day Saints voted for him after car
First of all, I do not oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein from power -- he's
every bit the tyrant that people say he is. What I oppose is a foreign country, a
superpower who think they have a mandate to police the world, deciding whom to
take out and who to leave in charge (if Hussein, why not a
After careful consideration, Jon Spencer wrote:
>Do you understand my position? OK, so you feel that Saddam is not a
>Gadianton, but that Bush and his controlling CFR are. It doesn't make
>sense to me, but you have the right to your own thoughts. But if, as you
>say, the Gospel can only pros
After careful consideration, Jon Spencer wrote:
>You have often railed against the Gadiantons in our midst. Well, can't
>you see that
>Saddam is one of them? The Nephites constantly pursued the Gadiantons -
>they actively searched for them and tried to destroy them. Were they
>wrong to do th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hindsight being what it is; if the circumstances of September 11th were known on
>September 9th and actions were taken against Afganistan and the terrorists on
>September 10th; I suspect alot of you would be yelling that this was a war of
>aggression and not self-d
Hindsight being what it is; if the circumstances of September 11th were known on
September 9th and actions were taken against Afganistan and the terrorists on
September 10th; I suspect alot of you would be yelling that this was a war of
aggression and not self-defense.
Further, I suspect as Pr
Well put. BTW, is there anyone here on the list who DID think Elder Nelson was
making an official statement about Iraq? Or was there someone who felt that given
that there's not even an imminent danger from Iraq, no one can justify a war of
aggression against Iraq on religious grounds?
Paul Osbor
Regarding the current political environment:
At present, the apostles of Mormonism have no business making public
announcements about whether a specific war should be fought or not. Apart
from revelation and authorization from God, it simply is not the business
of the church to assume a responsib
You have put the in the wrong place. Neither of the sources you refer
to used the word "peacenik". The Church statement *also* clarifies that Elder
Nelson condemned wars of aggression, and I think that's where the issue here is:
would an attack on Iraq constitute a war of aggression, or a defensi
>From today's WSJ Best of the Web comes the Church's official statement
saying that peaceniks are misinterpreting Elder Nelson's General
Conference talk:
Meanwhile, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
http://www.lds.org/media2/letters/0,10599,1592-1,00.html complains that
"some ne
64 matches
Mail list logo
