On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 17:52:32 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:
I said:
Pardon me. I forgot the implications of cow farts and the ozone. I'm
curious as to what the figures are, though. Does it contrast organic
vs. commercial cattle products and lifespan? THAT could be an eye
opener.
I doubt if there are any such studies. You have to coordinate studies that
show triglycerides and other lipid levels that correspond to eating a lot of
beef, and the cardio studies that coordinate those levels with mortality. It
takes some work and some knowledge of stats, but it's there.
Not that it keeps me from eating beef. But thanks to wonder drugs, my total
cholesterol is 81. d8-)
I had mine tested once. It was 231. I went on a "cholesterol-free"
diet for six months and was retested at 219. I said "FTN" and stopped
worrying.
Evidently, most are hetero and have sex only with consenting partners
only. Pretty wild, huh?
What's your evidence for this? I've seen nothing to support your point.
The proof is self-evident. There are no criminal reports or scandals.
Of what? How do you know if a criminal is a libertarian?
"Mr. X, libertarian councilman, was arrested today..."
If you're talking about Libertarian officials, there aren't enough to
produce any statistics.
So WTF are you so terrified about?
Shrub is a strong President?
He's a twit who currently holds a powerful office. That makes him something
like a teenager with booze and the keys to your car.
Yeah, and we know what PJ O'Rourke said about that combination...
Which particular powerful Libertarian pushed through that loophole in
the money game, Ed?
Dumb comeback, Larry. What additional regulations would a Libertarian have
voted for? Since they oppose vitually all of them: "We favor free-market
banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository
institutions of all types," it appears they not only would have voted
against new regulations, but they would have actively worked to strip those
few regulations that exist.
We don't see all regulation as bad, Ed. Just most.
I don't see any libertarian business owners, city councilors, mayors,
or governors being indicted, Ed.
How do you know which business owners are libertarians? Is it something that
comes up in court? g And how about those statistics on all those
Libertarian government officials? Do you have percentages with meaningful
stats?
According to you and our wonderful news media, being a libertarian is
akin to being labeled a KKKer or radical Muslim. Every time one makes
the news, which isn't very damned often (Even the arrest of a
Presidential candidate at the debates didn't make the national news
the same day in Badnarik's case) it's a miracle.
Or
do excellent track records not figure into your theories against
libertarians? You're awfully hot over this, Ed. Have you looked at
what's affecting your perspective yet? Please do.
What in the hell is that statement supposed to mean? English, please.
You seem to have a real "thing" against libertarians and you can't
provide any hard evidence against them when I ask for your
clarifications about your future predictions.
First off, some of my best friends are liberatarians. They aren't my
smartest friends, but they're friends.
Asswipe.
Secondly, the evidence is what businesses like Enron and financial
businesses like hedge funds have been doing to screw us in recent years.
They can screw us because the lack of regulations allow them to.
Libertarians want even fewer regulations: "The only proper role of
government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate
disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is
protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control
or manage trade, are improper in a free society." If that isn't enough
evidence for you of the "future predictions" that would come true if we had
even FEWER regulations, then you truly are off in a cloud of wishful
thinking.
Thirdly, it's just fun to tweak your nose. d8-)
AHA! The truth finally comes out.
So, what is it that is
affecting your perspective? Did a Libertarian scare your mother when
she was pregnant with you, or something?
There aren't enough libertarians around to matter much regarding anything.
There are people who call themselves libertarians, but, like Stuart, most of
them turn out to be moralists with an authoritarian streak who just want
people to behave better than they do. More wishful thinking.
shrug
P.S: My Tundra weighs only 4,850 lbs....
Dry weight. You're 98% liquid, and so is your fuel and coolant. d8-)
Yeah, I foud that out this morning when I took down my 9x9' boxwood
tree/shrub. DAMN those things are heavy. My 6-ounce t-shirt weighed
over two pounds with my externalized liquid during that hour of work.
Now I have a bigass stump. I think I'll ask my neighbor if I can
borrow his little trencher/backhoe for half an hour.
Stump grinders do a good job with a hell of a lot less work. They'll grind
it down a few inches below ground level and you can just cover them with
dirt. As they rot out, you just top-dress the area with an inch or two of
dirt every year.
I wish I'd thought of that. I haven't seen one in two decades.
You can rent stump grinders at Home Depot and other tool rentals. Nobody
digs out big stumps and roots anymore.
The last time I had someone use one of those, it was in my yard in CA.
They ground up 6 yucca stumps. Let me warn you that if you ever have a
yucca stump ground in your yard, you'd better hold a freakin' shotgun
to the guy's head until he has cleaned up every last ounce of chipped
yucca from your yard and hauled it off. I was on the phone every day
for two weeks to get the guy to come haul off what smelled like dead
dog meat out there. It was absolutely ungodly.
I also have a holly tree whose stump/trunk was about a foot in
diameter and whose rootball is over 2' in diameter. I've dug down a
foot and a half, severed all side roots, and it still isn't budging.
You're bringing back horrible memories from my youth. I HATE stumps. My
I don't mind small stumps and shrub rootball clusters, which is most
of my work around here. But large tree roots like the two in my yard
are proving to be a lot tougher. I'll see if my shop crane will hoist
those stumps out, and if not, I'll see about that grinder. Good call.
I forgot they existed, probably due to my last experience with one. I
hate that MF to this day.
grandfather used to dynamite them, but he had ten acres and it was a
different time. His ten acres were inside the town limits. d8-)
I'd love to use dynamite on these but I don't think that's in the
cards. My water line from my pumphouse is about 3' away from the holly
stump. The gas line feeding my house is about 4' away from the boxwood
stump, too. g
... and can tote an extra 1,750 lbs
in the bed. The beefyness of the truck ensures that it can also haul
more weight safely, 8,500 pounds worth.
And do you haul 8.500 pounds with it? I thought you said that the most you
carry is 500 pounds of tools, right?
No, I've hauled trailers, mixers, and welders with it and I use the
receiver hitch for helping pull stumps, etc.
Well, then, if you really need it, you're screwed. That is, unless you can
raise your prices enough to pay for the fuel.
Yeah. Wish me luck in that!
--
Jewish Zen:
Be here now. Be someplace else later. Is that so complicated, already?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.diversify.com - Uncomplicated Website Design, here and now.