"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
olddog wrote:

Oh bother! Peace never settled anything. Americans traditionally
love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle. When you
were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest
runner, big league ball players, the toughest boxers. Americans love
a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all
the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and
laughed. That's why Americans have never lost, and will never lose a
war... because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans.

And, like the space program, we have to consider the advances
generated by military activity. Like, uh, up-armored Humvees and,
uh, other things.

That's why you're going to lose.


Better to lose an election than lose a war.

When studying the Democrat's positions, I'm reminded of Dan Quayle's
observation: "A mind is a terrible thing to lose."


we lost the war in iraq the day it started.

olddog

In article ,
"retired54" wrote:

we lost the war in iraq the day it started.

We won the war, what we are having problems with is winning the peace.
If you look at past history, this is not an unusual occurrence is US
history.

On Oct 22, 7:57*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
I'm voting against the socialist Muslim guy. I'm not sure about the Ex POW,
but the Alaska governor sounds like someone common sense and reasonably
effective.

This is a joke, right?

Please tell me you're kidding.

nate

(my sarcasm meter apparently needs calibration.)

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"retired54" wrote:

we lost the war in iraq the day it started.

We won the war, what we are having problems with is winning the peace.
If you look at past history, this is not an unusual occurrence is US
history.

What did *you* win other than a huge national debt?

I've never been concerned with winning "freedom" for people just because
they happen to be sitting on a huge oil reserve.

I'd rather win the war on "oil addiction". Your war just perpetuates the
life style of excess that our planet can't sustain.

Yeah you won.

olddog

"N8N" wrote in message
...
On Oct 22, 7:57 pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
I'm voting against the socialist Muslim guy. I'm not sure about the Ex
POW,
but the Alaska governor sounds like someone common sense and reasonably
effective.

This is a joke, right?

Please tell me you're kidding.

nate

================================

no... sadly, it's not.

olddog

retired54 wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article
,
"retired54" wrote:
we lost the war in iraq the day it started.

We won the war, what we are having problems with is winning the
peace. If you look at past history, this is not an unusual
occurrence is US history.

What did *you* win other than a huge national debt?

## We got to kill lots and lots of goblins. Priceless.


I've never been concerned with winning "freedom" for people just
because they happen to be sitting on a huge oil reserve.

## Germany invaded Russia for oil. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor so the
country could have uninterrupted access to oil in the Dutch East Indies.
Access to oil is a time-tested excuse for going to war.


I'd rather win the war on "oil addiction". Your war just perpetuates
the life style of excess that our planet can't sustain.

## Every time I hear someone long for a simpler time, a less complicated
life, a revel in the serenity of nature's basics, I have one word:

Dentistry.


Yeah you won.


Not yet. We don't have ALL the oil.

wrote:

The bigger ones work well as Blankets for the homeless?

If McCain gets elected, you'll need them to build a bomb shelter.

I kinda doubt that any wacko or semi-wacko would take a chance on whether
McCain would fight back. Many in his own party, however, expect Obama to be
'tested.'

Consider what we did with Sadaam. We invaded his country, evicted him from
his homes, confiscated his fortunes, killed his children, exiled his family,
imprisoned his friends and associates, and, after he witnessed all that,
hanged his skanky ass. These actions should serve as a significant deterrent
to other cheese-brains similarly inclined.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
retired54 wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article
,
"retired54" wrote:
we lost the war in iraq the day it started.

We won the war, what we are having problems with is winning the
peace. If you look at past history, this is not an unusual
occurrence is US history.

What did *you* win other than a huge national debt?

## We got to kill lots and lots of goblins. Priceless.


I've never been concerned with winning "freedom" for people just
because they happen to be sitting on a huge oil reserve.

## Germany invaded Russia for oil. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor so the
country could have uninterrupted access to oil in the Dutch East Indies.
Access to oil is a time-tested excuse for going to war.


I'd rather win the war on "oil addiction". Your war just perpetuates
the life style of excess that our planet can't sustain.

## Every time I hear someone long for a simpler time, a less complicated
life, a revel in the serenity of nature's basics, I have one word:

Dentistry.


Yeah you won.


Not yet. We don't have ALL the oil.

You really need to watch the Frontline episode "Heat". Dude...were all
screwed!

Keep hiding your head in the sand but it's going to catch up with you or
your kids. The earth can only support so many American life styles. China,
India and Micro Indonesia are taking over. Right now they are going through
the same growing pains America is still growing through. Manhattan, Florida,
parts of Texas, New Jersey etc...are going to be under water. For Christ
sake it's already happening. Something is happening and if we don't wake up
and address it we're doomed. Personally, I hold little hope for the future
of mankind. Call me a kook but the evidence is here now.

Some people say technology holds the answer. I think we all need to curb our
expectations and learn how to live with less. Conserve, recycle, move close
to work or quit, walk to the store, ride your bike. We're too damn fat
anyway. Keep your appliances turn off or down. Quit having so many damn
babies. We don't have to rely on technology for the answer when it's our
over indulgent life styles that is the problem.

I've drastically cut back on my gasoline, electrical and natural gas usage
by keeping lights off and the thermostat up high in the summer and cooler in
the winter. I'm always turning things off and unplugging things. I walk to
the store when possible. But I don't see anybody else doing a god damn
thing. They drive around in their SUVs like nothings happening. They just
don't get it and I don't expect anything to change

olddog (aka kook)

On Oct 23, 8:38*am, George wrote:
ktos wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

I'm voting against the socialist Muslim guy. I'm not sure about the Ex
POW, but the Alaska governor sounds like someone common sense and
reasonably effective.

Palin is a big phony. She only spouts stupid things. *I lost respect and
any chance for McCain when he chose her for VP. *She exploits her little
baby when she parades the kid around on stage with bright lights and loud
noises. *Both McCain and Palin are clowns.

Apparantly you have only seen the mocking hollywood parodies of her. We
went to a local rally and she certainly demonstrated that she isn't an
airhead and can think on her feet.

And I have to agree that demonstrating that you value your family and
are a normal person is certainly a terrible thing.

she isn't an airhead and can think on her feet.

3 quotes from Ms. Palin:

"Red Sox fans know how to turn an underdog into a victor."

"How about those Tampa Bay Rays? You know what that tells me? It tells
me that the people in this area know a little something about turning
an underdog into a victor."

The Alaska governor...told the packed Lancaster Barnstormers stadium
that she was counting on Philadelphia Phillies fans to turn "an
underdog into a victor."

Now that's thinking on your feet!

On Oct 23, 2:50*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

The bigger ones work well as Blankets for the homeless?

If McCain gets elected, you'll need them to build a bomb shelter.

I kinda doubt that any wacko or semi-wacko would take a chance on whether
McCain would fight back. Many in his own party, however, expect Obama to be
'tested.'

Consider what we did with Sadaam. We invaded his country, evicted him from
his homes, confiscated his fortunes, killed his children, exiled his family,
imprisoned his friends and associates, and, after he witnessed all that,
hanged his skanky ass. These actions should serve as a significant deterrent
to other cheese-brains similarly inclined.

er: "similarly inclined"

Similarly inclined to do what? What did Sadaam do to the US that
others might be "similarly inclined" to do?

You used the words "fight back". What did Sadaam do that we were
"fighting back" against?

she isn't an airhead and can think on her feet.

3 quotes from Ms. Palin:

"Red Sox fans know how to turn an underdog into a victor."

"How about those Tampa Bay Rays? You know what that tells me? It tells
me that the people in this area know a little something about turning
an underdog into a victor."

The Alaska governor...told the packed Lancaster Barnstormers stadium
that she was counting on Philadelphia Phillies fans to turn "an
underdog into a victor."

Now that's thinking on your feet!

You are getting your time periods mixed up. Going into the playoffs
the Rays were definitely the underdogs. They were in last place just
last year. Palin correctly called them the underdogs during this time
period.

Once the Rays became the American league champs most all sporting
news authorities ranked the Rays as the team to beat. The Redsox
became the underdogs at that later time. Palin then identified the
Redsox correctly as the underdogs. Look it up if you don't believe it.

So it seems that she may be more on top of the changing times than
you think.

HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
The bigger ones work well as Blankets for the homeless?
If McCain gets elected, you'll need them to build a bomb shelter.

I kinda doubt that any wacko or semi-wacko would take a chance on whether
McCain would fight back. Many in his own party, however, expect Obama to be
'tested.'

Consider what we did with Sadaam. We invaded his country, evicted him from
his homes, confiscated his fortunes, killed his children, exiled his family,
imprisoned his friends and associates, and, after he witnessed all that,
hanged his skanky ass. These actions should serve as a significant deterrent
to other cheese-brains similarly inclined.



On the flip side, Osama, who actually attacked the US, is still at large.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:34:31 -0400, wrote:


she isn't an airhead and can think on her feet.

3 quotes from Ms. Palin:

"Red Sox fans know how to turn an underdog into a victor."

"How about those Tampa Bay Rays? You know what that tells me? It tells
me that the people in this area know a little something about turning
an underdog into a victor."

The Alaska governor...told the packed Lancaster Barnstormers stadium
that she was counting on Philadelphia Phillies fans to turn "an
underdog into a victor."

Now that's thinking on your feet!

You are getting your time periods mixed up. Going into the playoffs
the Rays were definitely the underdogs. They were in last place just
last year. Palin correctly called them the underdogs during this time
period.

Once the Rays became the American league champs most all sporting
news authorities ranked the Rays as the team to beat. The Redsox
became the underdogs at that later time. Palin then identified the
Redsox correctly as the underdogs. Look it up if you don't believe it.

So it seems that she may be more on top of the changing times than
you think.

I must make a correction. Change all references of the Redsox to the
Phillies. Sorry Philadelphia.

"Michael Dobony" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:41:55 GMT, retired54 wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
In a couple days we'll have plenty of signs going in the scrap. What to do
with them? Use the metal for wiring up mufflers? The cardboard to patch
holes in the wall?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


If it's a Obama sign a republican will be glad to take care of it for you.

olddog

Better yet, save it for fuel in the coming depression. Biden's economic
and foreign policies have been almost total failures. He never learns.
Wouldn't be much of a problem if Obama actually had a plan.

But then, the Republicans plans and methods are 100% proven failures. In both
foreign affairs and economic planning. They never learn.

On Oct 23, 3:34*pm, wrote:
she isn't an airhead and can think on her feet.

3 quotes from Ms. Palin:

"Red Sox fans know how to turn an underdog into a victor."

"How about those Tampa Bay Rays? You know what that tells me? It tells
me that the people in this area know a little something about turning
an underdog into a victor."

The Alaska governor...told the packed Lancaster Barnstormers stadium
that she was counting on Philadelphia Phillies fans to turn "an
underdog into a victor."

Now that's thinking on your feet!

You are getting your time periods mixed up. Going into the playoffs
the Rays were definitely the underdogs. They were in last place just
last year. Palin correctly called them the underdogs during this time
period.

Once the Rays became the American league champs most all sporting
news authorities ranked the Rays as the team to beat. The Redsox
became the underdogs at that later time. Palin then identified the
Redsox correctly as the underdogs. Look it up if you don't believe it.

So it seems that she may be more on top of the changing times than
you think.

Well, you sure did miss my point!

The reason for the quotes was not to voice my opinion on whether or
not she is "on top of the changing times".

I was responding to "she isn't an airhead and can think on her feet"

In this age of instant playback of anything said by a candidate, not
to mention the plethora of satirical news shows, you'd think that she
(or at least her speechwriters) would be agile enough to change the
words she uses when sucking up to different audiences. I'm not saying
she wasn't correct in what she was saying at the time she said it, but
there is more than one way to say that the underdogs were victorious.

DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Oct 23, 2:50 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

The bigger ones work well as Blankets for the homeless?

If McCain gets elected, you'll need them to build a bomb shelter.

I kinda doubt that any wacko or semi-wacko would take a chance on
whether McCain would fight back. Many in his own party, however,
expect Obama to be 'tested.'

Consider what we did with Sadaam. We invaded his country, evicted
him from his homes, confiscated his fortunes, killed his children,
exiled his family, imprisoned his friends and associates, and, after
he witnessed all that, hanged his skanky ass. These actions should
serve as a significant deterrent to other cheese-brains similarly
inclined.

er: "similarly inclined"

Similarly inclined to do what? What did Sadaam do to the US that
others might be "similarly inclined" to do?

## He made a face and it stayed that way.


You used the words "fight back". What did Sadaam do that we were
"fighting back" against?

## He made a face and it stayed that way.

"olddog" wrote in
:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
retired54 wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
.
..
In article
,
"retired54" wrote:
we lost the war in iraq the day it started.

We won the war, what we are having problems with is winning the
peace. If you look at past history, this is not an unusual
occurrence is US history.

What did *you* win other than a huge national debt?

## We got to kill lots and lots of goblins. Priceless.


I've never been concerned with winning "freedom" for people just
because they happen to be sitting on a huge oil reserve.

## Germany invaded Russia for oil. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor so the
country could have uninterrupted access to oil in the Dutch East
Indies. Access to oil is a time-tested excuse for going to war.


I'd rather win the war on "oil addiction". Your war just perpetuates
the life style of excess that our planet can't sustain.

## Every time I hear someone long for a simpler time, a less
complicated life, a revel in the serenity of nature's basics, I have
one word:

Dentistry.


Yeah you won.


Not yet. We don't have ALL the oil.

You really need to watch the Frontline episode "Heat". Dude...were
all screwed!

Keep hiding your head in the sand but it's going to catch up with you
or your kids. The earth can only support so many American life styles.
China, India and Micro Indonesia are taking over. Right now they are
going through the same growing pains America is still growing through.
Manhattan, Florida, parts of Texas, New Jersey etc...are going to be
under water. For Christ sake it's already happening. Something is
happening and if we don't wake up and address it we're doomed.
Personally, I hold little hope for the future of mankind. Call me a
kook but the evidence is here now.

Some people say technology holds the answer. I think we all need to
curb our expectations and learn how to live with less. Conserve,
recycle, move close to work or quit, walk to the store, ride your
bike. We're too damn fat anyway. Keep your appliances turn off or
down. Quit having so many damn babies. We don't have to rely on
technology for the answer when it's our over indulgent life styles
that is the problem.

I've drastically cut back on my gasoline, electrical and natural gas
usage by keeping lights off and the thermostat up high in the summer
and cooler in the winter. I'm always turning things off and unplugging
things. I walk to the store when possible. But I don't see anybody
else doing a god damn thing. They drive around in their SUVs like
nothings happening. They just don't get it and I don't expect anything
to change

olddog (aka kook)






you go right ahead in cutting back.

global warming is a bunch of nonsense.

we need more nuclear power plants.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
The bigger ones work well as Blankets for the homeless?
If McCain gets elected, you'll need them to build a bomb shelter.

I kinda doubt that any wacko or semi-wacko would take a chance on
whether McCain would fight back. Many in his own party, however,
expect Obama to be 'tested.'

Consider what we did with Sadaam. We invaded his country, evicted him
from his homes, confiscated his fortunes, killed his children, exiled
his family, imprisoned his friends and associates, and, after he
witnessed all that, hanged his skanky ass. These actions should serve
as a significant deterrent to other cheese-brains similarly inclined.



On the flip side, Osama, who actually attacked the US, is still at
large.

nate


but not able to really DO anything;he has to spend his energies dodging and
hiding.Even though he's found refuge in Pakistan.
(a nuclear-armed Islamic state)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

retired54 wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
retired54 wrote:


Yeah...."She" is probably right. Obama is adjusting to the fact that
ethanol is a failed energy alternative that would probably result in
more green house gas. But, he was in favor of ethanol because
Illinois is a corn producing state. IOW, politics as usual.

Right now Obama is just saying whatever is to his political
advantage, but, so is McCain.

I'm voting Obama, but mostly because the alternative, Bomb, Bomb,
Bomb Iran/Caribou Barbie ticket, is unthinkable.


Technology to the rescue.

We had ACRES of 500-2000 pound bombs left after Vietnam. In the past
few years, however, GPS guidance systems have been retrofitted to
this ordinance. These new bombs can now land within three feet of
the intended target at a cost of $NotMuch per bomb.

With the inherent precision, instead of multiple sorties per target,
we now enjoy multiple targets per sortie! There is no practical
limit to what we can destroy!

Outstanding!

So, the new motto: "Bomb, baby, bomb!"


http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/

That's a powerful speech that I do not recall hearing before. Thanks for the
link.

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
"olddog" wrote in
:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
retired54 wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
.
..
In article
,
"retired54" wrote:
we lost the war in iraq the day it started.

We won the war, what we are having problems with is winning the
peace. If you look at past history, this is not an unusual
occurrence is US history.

What did *you* win other than a huge national debt?

## We got to kill lots and lots of goblins. Priceless.


I've never been concerned with winning "freedom" for people just
because they happen to be sitting on a huge oil reserve.

## Germany invaded Russia for oil. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor so the
country could have uninterrupted access to oil in the Dutch East
Indies. Access to oil is a time-tested excuse for going to war.


I'd rather win the war on "oil addiction". Your war just perpetuates
the life style of excess that our planet can't sustain.

## Every time I hear someone long for a simpler time, a less
complicated life, a revel in the serenity of nature's basics, I have
one word:

Dentistry.


Yeah you won.


Not yet. We don't have ALL the oil.

You really need to watch the Frontline episode "Heat". Dude...were
all screwed!

Keep hiding your head in the sand but it's going to catch up with you
or your kids. The earth can only support so many American life styles.
China, India and Micro Indonesia are taking over. Right now they are
going through the same growing pains America is still growing through.
Manhattan, Florida, parts of Texas, New Jersey etc...are going to be
under water. For Christ sake it's already happening. Something is
happening and if we don't wake up and address it we're doomed.
Personally, I hold little hope for the future of mankind. Call me a
kook but the evidence is here now.

Some people say technology holds the answer. I think we all need to
curb our expectations and learn how to live with less. Conserve,
recycle, move close to work or quit, walk to the store, ride your
bike. We're too damn fat anyway. Keep your appliances turn off or
down. Quit having so many damn babies. We don't have to rely on
technology for the answer when it's our over indulgent life styles
that is the problem.

I've drastically cut back on my gasoline, electrical and natural gas
usage by keeping lights off and the thermostat up high in the summer
and cooler in the winter. I'm always turning things off and unplugging
things. I walk to the store when possible. But I don't see anybody
else doing a god damn thing. They drive around in their SUVs like
nothings happening. They just don't get it and I don't expect anything
to change

olddog (aka kook)






you go right ahead in cutting back.

global warming is a bunch of nonsense.


hence...we're screwed

we need more nuclear power plants.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

agreed about nuclear tho, but i don't understand....if global warming is
"nonsense" why not more coal plants?

Watch "Heat":

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat/

olddog

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
The bigger ones work well as Blankets for the homeless?
If McCain gets elected, you'll need them to build a bomb shelter.

I kinda doubt that any wacko or semi-wacko would take a chance on
whether McCain would fight back. Many in his own party, however,
expect Obama to be 'tested.'

Consider what we did with Sadaam. We invaded his country, evicted him
from his homes, confiscated his fortunes, killed his children, exiled
his family, imprisoned his friends and associates, and, after he
witnessed all that, hanged his skanky ass. These actions should serve
as a significant deterrent to other cheese-brains similarly inclined.



On the flip side, Osama, who actually attacked the US, is still at
large.

nate


but not able to really DO anything;he has to spend his energies dodging
and
hiding.Even though he's found refuge in Pakistan.
(a nuclear-armed Islamic state)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

I agree. He's a big piece of the puzzle but killing him wouldn't solve the
problem. But you know, nothing would please Bush more.

olddog

olddog wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
retired54 wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article
,
"retired54" wrote:
we lost the war in iraq the day it started.

We won the war, what we are having problems with is winning the
peace. If you look at past history, this is not an unusual
occurrence is US history.

What did *you* win other than a huge national debt?

## We got to kill lots and lots of goblins. Priceless.


I've never been concerned with winning "freedom" for people just
because they happen to be sitting on a huge oil reserve.

## Germany invaded Russia for oil. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor so the
country could have uninterrupted access to oil in the Dutch East
Indies. Access to oil is a time-tested excuse for going to war.


I'd rather win the war on "oil addiction". Your war just perpetuates
the life style of excess that our planet can't sustain.

## Every time I hear someone long for a simpler time, a less
complicated life, a revel in the serenity of nature's basics, I have
one word: Dentistry.


Yeah you won.


Not yet. We don't have ALL the oil.

You really need to watch the Frontline episode "Heat". Dude...were
all screwed!

Keep hiding your head in the sand but it's going to catch up with you
or your kids. The earth can only support so many American life
styles. China, India and Micro Indonesia are taking over. Right now
they are going through the same growing pains America is still
growing through. Manhattan, Florida, parts of Texas, New Jersey
etc...are going to be under water. For Christ sake it's already
happening. Something is happening and if we don't wake up and address
it we're doomed. Personally, I hold little hope for the future of
mankind. Call me a kook but the evidence is here now.
Some people say technology holds the answer. I think we all need to
curb our expectations and learn how to live with less. Conserve,
recycle, move close to work or quit, walk to the store, ride your
bike. We're too damn fat anyway. Keep your appliances turn off or
down. Quit having so many damn babies. We don't have to rely on
technology for the answer when it's our over indulgent life styles
that is the problem.
I've drastically cut back on my gasoline, electrical and natural gas
usage by keeping lights off and the thermostat up high in the summer
and cooler in the winter. I'm always turning things off and
unplugging things. I walk to the store when possible. But I don't see
anybody else doing a god damn thing. They drive around in their SUVs
like nothings happening. They just don't get it and I don't expect
anything to change

I agree whole heartedly that we cannot go on consuming at the rate we
currently do in the west. I've used CFL lighting for more than 25 years and
ensured that my home is well insulated, (UK and mostly cold!). I switched to
diesel powered motors more than 20 years ago, walk and use a bicycle.

We have to limit our impact and set examples. China set an excellent example
with their one child policy and despite their growing environmental impact,
we have to recognise that their country is presently the factory for the
planet, i.e. we are exporting our footprint to them.

olddog wrote:

Yeah you won.


Not yet. We don't have ALL the oil.

You really need to watch the Frontline episode "Heat". Dude...were
all screwed!

Keep hiding your head in the sand but it's going to catch up with you
or your kids. The earth can only support so many American life
styles. China, India and Micro Indonesia are taking over. Right now
they are going through the same growing pains America is still
growing through. Manhattan, Florida, parts of Texas, New Jersey
etc...are going to be under water. For Christ sake it's already
happening. Something is happening and if we don't wake up and address
it we're doomed. Personally, I hold little hope for the future of
mankind. Call me a kook but the evidence is here now.

Oh, fiddle-de-dee.

So what if parts of New Jersey and other places go under water - we'll move
inland. If we can put up with the population density of Hong Kong, the
entire planet's population could fit in a space the size of Georgia - and
Hong Kong has a pretty high standard of living.

By every economic standard, we are better off putting resources into
adjusting to whatever climate changes come upon us than trying to mitigate
them.



Some people say technology holds the answer. I think we all need to
curb our expectations and learn how to live with less. Conserve,
recycle, move close to work or quit, walk to the store, ride your
bike. We're too damn fat anyway. Keep your appliances turn off or
down. Quit having so many damn babies. We don't have to rely on
technology for the answer when it's our over indulgent life styles
that is the problem.

Conserve is good. Consumer recycling is usually not good - it costs more to
recycle than to discard. Reuse is better. I live in one-half of a duplex and
my office is in the other. I don't have a bike. I'm not fat. I don't have
babies.

Our "over-indulgent life style" is the problem? You have a point there. Our
technology allows us to have an average life expectancy somewhere in the
70's. Were it not for the technology, we'd live to an average of half that
(which is true for many non-technological societies today still).


I've drastically cut back on my gasoline, electrical and natural gas
usage by keeping lights off and the thermostat up high in the summer
and cooler in the winter. I'm always turning things off and
unplugging things. I walk to the store when possible. But I don't see
anybody else doing a god damn thing. They drive around in their SUVs
like nothings happening. They just don't get it and I don't expect
anything to change


I am pleased that you've done what you could to cut back. That means there's
more for me.

As for "they just don't get it," I suggest there's nothing - or at least not
much - to "get." But, for the True Believer, there IS the chance to add
meaning to their useless lives, something to use as an excuse to mind other
people's business, something (or someone) to hate.

"Clot" wrote in message
...
olddog wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
retired54 wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article
,
"retired54" wrote:
we lost the war in iraq the day it started.

We won the war, what we are having problems with is winning the
peace. If you look at past history, this is not an unusual
occurrence is US history.

What did *you* win other than a huge national debt?

## We got to kill lots and lots of goblins. Priceless.


I've never been concerned with winning "freedom" for people just
because they happen to be sitting on a huge oil reserve.

## Germany invaded Russia for oil. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor so the
country could have uninterrupted access to oil in the Dutch East
Indies. Access to oil is a time-tested excuse for going to war.


I'd rather win the war on "oil addiction". Your war just perpetuates
the life style of excess that our planet can't sustain.

## Every time I hear someone long for a simpler time, a less
complicated life, a revel in the serenity of nature's basics, I have
one word: Dentistry.


Yeah you won.


Not yet. We don't have ALL the oil.

You really need to watch the Frontline episode "Heat". Dude...were
all screwed!

Keep hiding your head in the sand but it's going to catch up with you
or your kids. The earth can only support so many American life
styles. China, India and Micro Indonesia are taking over. Right now
they are going through the same growing pains America is still
growing through. Manhattan, Florida, parts of Texas, New Jersey
etc...are going to be under water. For Christ sake it's already
happening. Something is happening and if we don't wake up and address
it we're doomed. Personally, I hold little hope for the future of
mankind. Call me a kook but the evidence is here now.
Some people say technology holds the answer. I think we all need to
curb our expectations and learn how to live with less. Conserve,
recycle, move close to work or quit, walk to the store, ride your
bike. We're too damn fat anyway. Keep your appliances turn off or
down. Quit having so many damn babies. We don't have to rely on
technology for the answer when it's our over indulgent life styles
that is the problem.
I've drastically cut back on my gasoline, electrical and natural gas
usage by keeping lights off and the thermostat up high in the summer
and cooler in the winter. I'm always turning things off and
unplugging things. I walk to the store when possible. But I don't see
anybody else doing a god damn thing. They drive around in their SUVs
like nothings happening. They just don't get it and I don't expect
anything to change

I agree whole heartedly that we cannot go on consuming at the rate we
currently do in the west. I've used CFL lighting for more than 25 years
and ensured that my home is well insulated, (UK and mostly cold!). I
switched to diesel powered motors more than 20 years ago, walk and use a
bicycle.

We have to limit our impact and set examples. China set an excellent
example with their one child policy and despite their growing
environmental impact, we have to recognise that their country is presently
the factory for the planet, i.e. we are exporting our footprint to them.

The USA is not setting a good example. Europe is taking the lead in
reduction of green house gasses according to Frontline (pbs TV show) because
Europe historically has paid much higher prices for fuel.

Good for you guys. Don't wait for us because we still have that Cowboy,
throw-the-beer-can-out-the-window attitude going here. It's actually
encouraged. Read some of our colleagues posts and you'll see what I mean.

I just shake my head and go about my business.

I wouldn't be too enthused about the Chinese. China and India are building
coal-fired power plants literally as fast as they can. China overtook the
United States in 2006 as the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide.

Watch " Heat".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat/

It's getting very grim.

olddog

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
olddog wrote:

Yeah you won.


Not yet. We don't have ALL the oil.

You really need to watch the Frontline episode "Heat". Dude...were
all screwed!

Keep hiding your head in the sand but it's going to catch up with you
or your kids. The earth can only support so many American life
styles. China, India and Micro Indonesia are taking over. Right now
they are going through the same growing pains America is still
growing through. Manhattan, Florida, parts of Texas, New Jersey
etc...are going to be under water. For Christ sake it's already
happening. Something is happening and if we don't wake up and address
it we're doomed. Personally, I hold little hope for the future of
mankind. Call me a kook but the evidence is here now.

Oh, fiddle-de-dee.

So what if parts of New Jersey and other places go under water - we'll
move inland. If we can put up with the population density of Hong Kong,
the entire planet's population could fit in a space the size of Georgia -
and Hong Kong has a pretty high standard of living.

By every economic standard, we are better off putting resources into
adjusting to whatever climate changes come upon us than trying to mitigate
them.



Some people say technology holds the answer. I think we all need to
curb our expectations and learn how to live with less. Conserve,
recycle, move close to work or quit, walk to the store, ride your
bike. We're too damn fat anyway. Keep your appliances turn off or
down. Quit having so many damn babies. We don't have to rely on
technology for the answer when it's our over indulgent life styles
that is the problem.

Conserve is good. Consumer recycling is usually not good - it costs more
to recycle than to discard. Reuse is better. I live in one-half of a
duplex and my office is in the other. I don't have a bike. I'm not fat. I
don't have babies.

Our "over-indulgent life style" is the problem? You have a point there.
Our technology allows us to have an average life expectancy somewhere in
the 70's. Were it not for the technology, we'd live to an average of half
that (which is true for many non-technological societies today still).


I've drastically cut back on my gasoline, electrical and natural gas
usage by keeping lights off and the thermostat up high in the summer
and cooler in the winter. I'm always turning things off and
unplugging things. I walk to the store when possible. But I don't see
anybody else doing a god damn thing. They drive around in their SUVs
like nothings happening. They just don't get it and I don't expect
anything to change


I am pleased that you've done what you could to cut back. That means
there's more for me.

As for "they just don't get it," I suggest there's nothing - or at least
not much - to "get." But, for the True Believer, there IS the chance to
add meaning to their useless lives, something to use as an excuse to mind
other people's business, something (or someone) to hate.



I can't tell if you're joking or not.

Party on Cowboy. I'll be the guy flipping you off as you drive by in your
Denali.

olddog

I oppose socialist muslims who want to redistribute wealth.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"N8N" wrote in message
...
On Oct 22, 7:57 pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
I'm voting against the socialist Muslim guy. I'm not sure about the Ex
POW,
but the Alaska governor sounds like someone common sense and reasonably
effective.

This is a joke, right?

Please tell me you're kidding.

nate

(my sarcasm meter apparently needs calibration.)

olddog wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
The bigger ones work well as Blankets for the homeless?
If McCain gets elected, you'll need them to build a bomb shelter.

I kinda doubt that any wacko or semi-wacko would take a chance on
whether McCain would fight back. Many in his own party, however,
expect Obama to be 'tested.'

Consider what we did with Sadaam. We invaded his country, evicted him
from his homes, confiscated his fortunes, killed his children, exiled
his family, imprisoned his friends and associates, and, after he
witnessed all that, hanged his skanky ass. These actions should serve
as a significant deterrent to other cheese-brains similarly inclined.



On the flip side, Osama, who actually attacked the US, is still at
large.

nate


but not able to really DO anything;he has to spend his energies
dodging and
hiding.Even though he's found refuge in Pakistan.
(a nuclear-armed Islamic state)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

I agree. He's a big piece of the puzzle but killing him wouldn't solve
the problem. But you know, nothing would please Bush more.

olddog

If you want to send a message, there's no more powerful message than
swift, accurate justice. Unfortunately that window closed a while ago.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I oppose socialist muslims who want to redistribute wealth.


So? That in no way negates the fact that Palin is a shrill sound bite
generator who has yet to show any substance whatsoever.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

retired54 wrote:


I can't tell if you're joking or not.

Party on Cowboy. I'll be the guy flipping you off as you drive by in
your Denali.



It's easy to tell if I am joking: Did you laugh with a thigh-slapping, out
loud, guffaw of such intensity that tears ran down you cheek? If not, well,
then, I'm not joking.

You mean "Denali" as in "Winnebago?" The one with the "Our House is Off"
bumper sticker?

Nate Nagel wrote:

I agree. He's [Osama ben Laden] a big piece of the puzzle but killing him
wouldn't
solve the problem. But you know, nothing would please Bush more.

olddog

If you want to send a message, there's no more powerful message than
swift, accurate justice. Unfortunately that window closed a while
ago.

It has never been the policy of the United States to kill or capture Osama
ben Laden. If either happens, it's a bonus, but actively pursuing either has
never been a strategic - or even tactical - goal of the United States in the
War on Terror.

Since immediately after 9-11, the single strategic goal of the United States
has been to prevent another attack on the country or civilian U.S. interests
abroad. To accomplish this goal, tactical efforts have been directed toward
disrupting terrorist communications, financing, recruiting, training, and
the harboring of terrorists by rogue states as well as strengthening
defenses both at home and abroad.

In the decade of the 90's, there have been one or two attacks on U.S.
interests, either here or overseas, per year. WTC 1, the USS Cole, embassy
bombings, kidnappings of diplomats, etc. Since the aforementioned policy was
adopted, there has not been one single attack - successful or otherwise - in
the United States or against civilian US interests abroad.

To "capture" or "kill" ben Laden as a goal is to harken to the criminal
justice model. Ben Laden is NOT a criminal - he is an unlawful enemy
combatant, same as any other guerrilla, saboteur, spy, or fifth-columnist.
The criminal justice methodology is not the technique to use on him.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, and others understand this. Obama, Biden,
Pelosi, Carter, and others of the left do not.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
retired54 wrote:


I can't tell if you're joking or not.

Party on Cowboy. I'll be the guy flipping you off as you drive by in
your Denali.



It's easy to tell if I am joking: Did you laugh with a thigh-slapping, out
loud, guffaw of such intensity that tears ran down you cheek? If not,
well, then, I'm not joking.

You mean "Denali" as in "Winnebago?" The one with the "Our House is Off"
bumper sticker?

Nobody is laughing. Just disgusted.

I'm used to Cowboys now. Been here awhile.

Reminds me of the Neil Young lyrics:

"Your Cadillac
has got a wheel in the ditch
And a wheel on the track"

olddog

"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...
Stormin Mormon wrote:
I oppose socialist muslims who want to redistribute wealth.


So? That in no way negates the fact that Palin is a shrill sound bite
generator who has yet to show any substance whatsoever.


But it does indicate deliberate ignorance of the facts.

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
On Oct 23, 2:50 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

The bigger ones work well as Blankets for the homeless?

If McCain gets elected, you'll need them to build a bomb shelter.

I kinda doubt that any wacko or semi-wacko would take a chance on whether
McCain would fight back. Many in his own party, however, expect Obama to be
'tested.'

Consider what we did with Sadaam. We invaded his country, evicted him from
his homes, confiscated his fortunes, killed his children, exiled his family,
imprisoned his friends and associates, and, after he witnessed all that,
hanged his skanky ass. These actions should serve as a significant deterrent
to other cheese-brains similarly inclined.

er: "similarly inclined"

Similarly inclined to do what? What did Sadaam do to the US that
others might be "similarly inclined" to do?

You used the words "fight back". What did Sadaam do that we were
"fighting back" against?

************************************************** ******

He had our oil?

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
The bigger ones work well as Blankets for the homeless?
If McCain gets elected, you'll need them to build a bomb shelter.

I kinda doubt that any wacko or semi-wacko would take a chance on
whether McCain would fight back. Many in his own party, however,
expect Obama to be 'tested.'

Consider what we did with Sadaam. We invaded his country, evicted him
from his homes, confiscated his fortunes, killed his children, exiled
his family, imprisoned his friends and associates, and, after he
witnessed all that, hanged his skanky ass. These actions should serve
as a significant deterrent to other cheese-brains similarly inclined.



On the flip side, Osama, who actually attacked the US, is still at
large.

nate


but not able to really DO anything;he has to spend his energies dodging and
hiding.Even though he's found refuge in Pakistan.
(a nuclear-armed Islamic state)

That's not what the U.S. intelligence estimates say at all.
But obviously, you know better than they do.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Nate Nagel wrote:

I agree. He's [Osama ben Laden] a big piece of the puzzle but killing him
wouldn't
solve the problem. But you know, nothing would please Bush more.

olddog

If you want to send a message, there's no more powerful message than
swift, accurate justice. Unfortunately that window closed a while
ago.

It has never been the policy of the United States to kill or capture Osama ben
Laden. If either happens, it's a bonus, but actively pursuing either has never
been a strategic - or even tactical - goal of the United States in the War on
Terror.

Since immediately after 9-11, the single strategic goal of the United States
has been to prevent another attack on the country or civilian U.S. interests
abroad. To accomplish this goal, tactical efforts have been directed toward
disrupting terrorist communications, financing, recruiting, training, and the
harboring of terrorists by rogue states as well as strengthening defenses both
at home and abroad.

In the decade of the 90's, there have been one or two attacks on U.S.
interests, either here or overseas, per year. WTC 1, the USS Cole, embassy
bombings, kidnappings of diplomats, etc. Since the aforementioned policy was
adopted, there has not been one single attack - successful or otherwise - in
the United States or against civilian US interests abroad.

To "capture" or "kill" ben Laden as a goal is to harken to the criminal
justice model. Ben Laden is NOT a criminal - he is an unlawful enemy
combatant, same as any other guerrilla, saboteur, spy, or fifth-columnist. The
criminal justice methodology is not the technique to use on him.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, and others understand this. Obama, Biden,
Pelosi, Carter, and others of the left do not.


Iraq is nothing more than a terrorist recruitment and training ground. The
techniques developed there are now being used in Afganistan (by the terrorists).

I was responding to "she isn't an airhead and can think on her feet"

In this age of instant playback of anything said by a candidate, not
to mention the plethora of satirical news shows, you'd think that she
(or at least her speechwriters) would be agile enough to change the
words she uses when sucking up to different audiences. I'm not saying
she wasn't correct in what she was saying at the time she said it, but
there is more than one way to say that the underdogs were victorious.


Oh, I get your point. Other proper examples for the same point
would be.........

It's time for change

It's time for a change

and.........

Under George Bush's economic plan

Under Bush's economic plan

Bob F wrote:

It has never been the policy of the United States to kill or capture
Osama ben Laden. If either happens, it's a bonus, but actively
pursuing either has never been a strategic - or even tactical - goal
of the United States in the War on Terror.

Since immediately after 9-11, the single strategic goal of the
United States has been to prevent another attack on the country or
civilian U.S. interests abroad. To accomplish this goal, tactical
efforts have been directed toward disrupting terrorist
communications, financing, recruiting, training, and the harboring
of terrorists by rogue states as well as strengthening defenses both
at home and abroad. In the decade of the 90's, there have been one or two
attacks on U.S.
interests, either here or overseas, per year. WTC 1, the USS Cole,
embassy bombings, kidnappings of diplomats, etc. Since the
aforementioned policy was adopted, there has not been one single
attack - successful or otherwise - in the United States or against
civilian US interests abroad. To "capture" or "kill" ben Laden as a goal
is to harken to the
criminal justice model. Ben Laden is NOT a criminal - he is an
unlawful enemy combatant, same as any other guerrilla, saboteur,
spy, or fifth-columnist. The criminal justice methodology is not the
technique to use on him. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, and others
understand this. Obama,
Biden, Pelosi, Carter, and others of the left do not.


Iraq is nothing more than a terrorist recruitment and training
ground. The techniques developed there are now being used in
Afganistan (by the terrorists).

To a large degree, I agree. On the plus side, Iraq can be considered as a
"flypaper tactic." Many of the wannabe terrorists flocked to Iraq where we
killed them at a prodigious rate. We killed them by the thousands. As for
Afghanistan, who cares?

Some ancient worthy said "The penis is mightier than the sword." By that he
meant that your enemies can breed faster than you can kill them - and that's
probably true. But it takes a generation to grow new goblins and who knows
how things can change in fifteen or twenty years.

For example, evolution may take over in that we've removed a goodly portion
of the 'stupid gene' (i.e., attacking an Abrams tank with a pickup-mounted
..50 caliber machine gun) from circulation.

On Oct 24, 3:27*am, "Bob F" wrote:
"Nate Nagel" wrote in message

...

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I oppose socialist muslims who want to redistribute wealth.

So? *That in no way negates the fact that Palin is a shrill sound bite
generator who has yet to show any substance whatsoever.

But it does indicate deliberate ignorance of the facts.

No, I too oppose socialist muslims. That tag, at least the "muslim"
part, does not apply to Obama however. Hopefully the moderates in
Congress will be able to minimize the socialist effects of an Obama
presidency.

nate

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

olddog wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
The bigger ones work well as Blankets for the homeless?
If McCain gets elected, you'll need them to build a bomb shelter.

I kinda doubt that any wacko or semi-wacko would take a chance on
whether McCain would fight back. Many in his own party, however,
expect Obama to be 'tested.'

Consider what we did with Sadaam. We invaded his country, evicted him
from his homes, confiscated his fortunes, killed his children, exiled
his family, imprisoned his friends and associates, and, after he
witnessed all that, hanged his skanky ass. These actions should serve
as a significant deterrent to other cheese-brains similarly inclined.



On the flip side, Osama, who actually attacked the US, is still at
large.

nate


but not able to really DO anything;he has to spend his energies
dodging and
hiding.Even though he's found refuge in Pakistan.
(a nuclear-armed Islamic state)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

I agree. He's a big piece of the puzzle but killing him wouldn't solve
the problem. But you know, nothing would please Bush more.

olddog

If you want to send a message, there's no more powerful message than
swift, accurate justice. Unfortunately that window closed a while ago.

nate


long before Bush got into office. don't forget WTC I.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I oppose socialist muslims who want to redistribute wealth.


So? That in no way negates the fact that Palin is a shrill sound bite
generator who has yet to show any substance whatsoever.

nate


she has far more substance than Obama.
He's been nothing more than a placeholder.
and he's DISHONEST;
he lied about so many things,yet Obama supporters are so willing to
overlook his lies. He's STILL hiding his background,too.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net