|
Who owns the rain?
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:35:29 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote: "By capturing rainwater, some homeowners are breaking the law. This has put city and state governments in an awkward position-smack in the middle of competing water users and advocates, often from within their own agencies, of conserving water to protect supplies." http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...h/4314447.html Some say rainwater should follow its natural course instead of being diverted by homeowners so that the homeowner's betters can allocate the water based on need - or political pressure - to those more, um, worthy of wetting. It's for the children. There's a small town just north of me where it is illegal to sing "It aint gonna rain no mo, no mo,..." |
Who owns the rain?
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
It's always easy to argue against starting a war in the wrong country, rather than USE (and the worst way for Saddam and the best way for us) an unsavory dictator to maintain stability in one place while we deal with the right place (Pakistan). Bush may have a diploma, but he has no knowledge of history. He's one of many fools who think that once soldiers begin dying, it makes the cause a noble one, even if the cause is a complete mistake like Iraq (or Vietnam). I agree that "noble cause" or the "white man's burden" is sometimes hard to justify. But as for soldiers dying, don't give it a thought. Our soldiers volunteered, knowing the risk of death or injury, for the chance to kill people and blow things up. Seeking that thrill is no different from other frightful hobbies: mountain climbing, sky-diving, tightrope walking, or adultry. Our warrior class needs a war every decade or so, not only to keep the tip of the spear sharp, but to garner new recruits. Who would ever want to be a fireman if there were never any fires? No, our warriors want to be there, they trained to be there, they need to be there. And they're willing to take casualties for the privilege. I know what it was like - I was once an active warrior. I'll forever praise Lyndon Johnson for giving me an opportunity and I'll be the last to deny our current crop of yougsters their dream. |
Who owns the rain?
Bill wrote:
Ga also wants their northern border moved to where it's supposed to be so they can tap the Tennessee River. Wouldn't it be cheaper to use a pipe? |
Who owns the rain?
HeyBub wrote:
Bill wrote: Ga also wants their northern border moved to where it's supposed to be so they can tap the Tennessee River. Wouldn't it be cheaper to use a pipe? IF TENNESSEE WOULD LET THEM. ACCORDING TO THE CHARTER THAT STARTED GEORGIA THE N LINE INCLUDES SOME PART OF THE TENNESSEE RIVER. http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2...sses_rules.pdf |
Who owns the rain?
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: It's always easy to argue against starting a war in the wrong country, rather than USE (and the worst way for Saddam and the best way for us) an unsavory dictator to maintain stability in one place while we deal with the right place (Pakistan). Bush may have a diploma, but he has no knowledge of history. He's one of many fools who think that once soldiers begin dying, it makes the cause a noble one, even if the cause is a complete mistake like Iraq (or Vietnam). I agree that "noble cause" or the "white man's burden" is sometimes hard to justify. But as for soldiers dying, don't give it a thought. Our soldiers volunteered, knowing the risk of death or injury, for the chance to kill people and blow things up. Seeking that thrill is no different from other frightful hobbies: mountain climbing, sky-diving, tightrope walking, or adultry. Our warrior class needs a war every decade or so, not only to keep the tip of the spear sharp, but to garner new recruits. Who would ever want to be a fireman if there were never any fires? No, our warriors want to be there, they trained to be there, they need to be there. And they're willing to take casualties for the privilege. I know what it was like - I was once an active warrior. I'll forever praise Lyndon Johnson for giving me an opportunity and I'll be the last to deny our current crop of yougsters their dream. I've got to hand it to you - you've got the idiot routine down to a science. |
Who owns the rain?
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 06:48:50 -0700 (PDT), Red
wrote: On Apr 23, 5:19*pm, Oren wrote: AZ, CA and NV just went through negotiations over the water war. Ditto for GA, AL, FL. GA wants to keep all the water flow in their state rather than let it flow south to AL & FL. Several recent years of severe drought bought the water war to a head. I followed some of the news. FL and GA were on fire!! This is about the same time GA argued about moving the border with TN. CA has drought now, even with NV water. CA refuses to build desalinization plants. Don't get me started about how the Corps of Engineers participated in the destruction of the Everglades. |
Who owns the rain?
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:58:09 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote: Bill wrote: Ga also wants their northern border moved to where it's supposed to be so they can tap the Tennessee River. Wouldn't it be cheaper to use a pipe? It's for the children. |
Who owns the rain?
Oren wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 06:48:50 -0700 (PDT), Red wrote: On Apr 23, 5:19 pm, Oren wrote: AZ, CA and NV just went through negotiations over the water war. Ditto for GA, AL, FL. GA wants to keep all the water flow in their state rather than let it flow south to AL & FL. Several recent years of severe drought bought the water war to a head. I followed some of the news. FL and GA were on fire!! This is about the same time GA argued about moving the border with TN. to where it is supposed to be. CA has drought now, even with NV water. CA refuses to build desalinization plants. That is dumb. Don't get me started about how the Corps of Engineers participated in the destruction of the Everglades. saw that on PBS |
Who owns the rain?
HeyBub wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: It's always easy to argue against starting a war in the wrong country, rather than USE (and the worst way for Saddam and the best way for us) an unsavory dictator to maintain stability in one place while we deal with the right place (Pakistan). Bush may have a diploma, but he has no knowledge of history. He's one of many fools who think that once soldiers begin dying, it makes the cause a noble one, even if the cause is a complete mistake like Iraq (or Vietnam). I agree that "noble cause" or the "white man's burden" is sometimes hard to justify. But as for soldiers dying, don't give it a thought. Our soldiers volunteered, knowing the risk of death or injury, for the chance to kill people and blow things up. Seeking that thrill is no different from other frightful hobbies: mountain climbing, sky-diving, tightrope walking, or adultry. Our warrior class needs a war every decade or so, not only to keep the tip of the spear sharp, but to garner new recruits. Who would ever want to be a fireman if there were never any fires? No, our warriors want to be there, they trained to be there, they need to be there. And they're willing to take casualties for the privilege. I know what it was like - I was once an active warrior. I'll forever praise Lyndon Johnson for giving me an opportunity and I'll be the last to deny our current crop of yougsters their dream. IMHO, an 18-23 year old lacks the life experience to make an informed rational decision about volunteering for combat duty. They are still young, horny, and immortal. So old men send young men to die. We really need to bring back the custom of the generals and politicans/kings leading the troops into battle. -- aem sends... |
Who owns the rain?
aemeijers wrote:
HeyBub wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: It's always easy to argue against starting a war in the wrong country, rather than USE (and the worst way for Saddam and the best way for us) an unsavory dictator to maintain stability in one place while we deal with the right place (Pakistan). Bush may have a diploma, but he has no knowledge of history. He's one of many fools who think that once soldiers begin dying, it makes the cause a noble one, even if the cause is a complete mistake like Iraq (or Vietnam). I agree that "noble cause" or the "white man's burden" is sometimes hard to justify. But as for soldiers dying, don't give it a thought. Our soldiers volunteered, knowing the risk of death or injury, for the chance to kill people and blow things up. Seeking that thrill is no different from other frightful hobbies: mountain climbing, sky-diving, tightrope walking, or adultry. Our warrior class needs a war every decade or so, not only to keep the tip of the spear sharp, but to garner new recruits. Who would ever want to be a fireman if there were never any fires? No, our warriors want to be there, they trained to be there, they need to be there. And they're willing to take casualties for the privilege. I know what it was like - I was once an active warrior. I'll forever praise Lyndon Johnson for giving me an opportunity and I'll be the last to deny our current crop of yougsters their dream. IMHO, an 18-23 year old lacks the life experience to make an informed rational decision about volunteering for combat duty. They are still young, horny, and immortal. So old men send young men to die. We really need to bring back the custom of the generals and politicans/kings leading the troops into battle. -- aem sends... if that is the case then they shouldn't vote or drive or drink. |
Who owns the rain?
Bill wrote:
aemeijers wrote: HeyBub wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: It's always easy to argue against starting a war in the wrong country, rather than USE (and the worst way for Saddam and the best way for us) an unsavory dictator to maintain stability in one place while we deal with the right place (Pakistan). Bush may have a diploma, but he has no knowledge of history. He's one of many fools who think that once soldiers begin dying, it makes the cause a noble one, even if the cause is a complete mistake like Iraq (or Vietnam). I agree that "noble cause" or the "white man's burden" is sometimes hard to justify. But as for soldiers dying, don't give it a thought. Our soldiers volunteered, knowing the risk of death or injury, for the chance to kill people and blow things up. Seeking that thrill is no different from other frightful hobbies: mountain climbing, sky-diving, tightrope walking, or adultry. Our warrior class needs a war every decade or so, not only to keep the tip of the spear sharp, but to garner new recruits. Who would ever want to be a fireman if there were never any fires? No, our warriors want to be there, they trained to be there, they need to be there. And they're willing to take casualties for the privilege. I know what it was like - I was once an active warrior. I'll forever praise Lyndon Johnson for giving me an opportunity and I'll be the last to deny our current crop of yougsters their dream. IMHO, an 18-23 year old lacks the life experience to make an informed rational decision about volunteering for combat duty. They are still young, horny, and immortal. So old men send young men to die. We really need to bring back the custom of the generals and politicans/kings leading the troops into battle. -- aem sends... if that is the case then they shouldn't vote or drive or drink. As to voting, I wish there was a fair way to have a test to see if they can read and write before they vote. As to drinking and driving- well, insurance statistics would agree with you. It applies to a slightly younger age block, but the graduated drivers licenses have cut the accident rate. And that, of course, is why they changed the drinking age back to 21 from the 18 it was briefly at. Yes, I know, kids in other countries drink, but in those countries most kids can't afford to drive, and drinking is not a social rite of passage. It is also a hell of a lot harder to get a license, something this country should probably emulate. (now that I am too old to be affected, of course.) Some, even most, kids are quite bright, stable, and trustworthy, at least most of the time. Too bad the hormone-addled ones ruin it for the others. -- aem sends... |
Who owns the rain?
"Sanity" wrote in
: "HeyBub" wrote in message ... "By capturing rainwater, some homeowners are breaking the law. This has put city and state governments in an awkward position-smack in the middle of competing water users and advocates, often from within their own agencies, of conserving water to protect supplies." http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...h/4314447.html Some say rainwater should follow its natural course instead of being diverted by homeowners so that the homeowner's betters can allocate the water based on need - or political pressure - to those more, um, worthy of wetting. It's for the children. If the government says that I can't keep the water that falls on my land, let the government keep the water from falling on it!!!!! There's a lot of Apache and Blackhawks that fly over my land. If one falls, I wonder if I can keep it, :-) |
Who owns the rain?
Red Green wrote:
"Sanity" wrote in : "HeyBub" wrote in message ... "By capturing rainwater, some homeowners are breaking the law. This has put city and state governments in an awkward position-smack in the middle of competing water users and advocates, often from within their own agencies, of conserving water to protect supplies." http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...h/4314447.html Some say rainwater should follow its natural course instead of being diverted by homeowners so that the homeowner's betters can allocate the water based on need - or political pressure - to those more, um, worthy of wetting. It's for the children. If the government says that I can't keep the water that falls on my land, let the government keep the water from falling on it!!!!! There's a lot of Apache and Blackhawks that fly over my land. If one falls, I wonder if I can keep it, :-) If it actually falls out of the sky, you probably wouldn't want it. -- aem sends... |
Who owns the rain?
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote: Our soldiers volunteered, knowing the risk of death or injury, for the chance to kill people and blow things up. I thought they joined to earn money for college. I'm pretty sure no one told them they might actually get shot. |
Who owns the rain?
In article ,
Oren wrote: CA refuses to build desalinization plants. We built one in Santa Barbara. Then the voters demanded we be hooked up to State Water. So the desal plant, having never been put on line, was mothballed for quite a few years, then sold to some South American country IIRC. Desalinization is a pretty spendy way to get water, though. |
Who owns the rain?
Smitty Two wrote:
In article , "HeyBub" wrote: Our soldiers volunteered, knowing the risk of death or injury, for the chance to kill people and blow things up. I thought they joined to earn money for college. I'm pretty sure no one told them they might actually get shot. even you are not that stoopid, r u? |
Who owns the rain?
"aemeijers" wrote in message
... HeyBub wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: It's always easy to argue against starting a war in the wrong country, rather than USE (and the worst way for Saddam and the best way for us) an unsavory dictator to maintain stability in one place while we deal with the right place (Pakistan). Bush may have a diploma, but he has no knowledge of history. He's one of many fools who think that once soldiers begin dying, it makes the cause a noble one, even if the cause is a complete mistake like Iraq (or Vietnam). I agree that "noble cause" or the "white man's burden" is sometimes hard to justify. But as for soldiers dying, don't give it a thought. Our soldiers volunteered, knowing the risk of death or injury, for the chance to kill people and blow things up. Seeking that thrill is no different from other frightful hobbies: mountain climbing, sky-diving, tightrope walking, or adultry. Our warrior class needs a war every decade or so, not only to keep the tip of the spear sharp, but to garner new recruits. Who would ever want to be a fireman if there were never any fires? No, our warriors want to be there, they trained to be there, they need to be there. And they're willing to take casualties for the privilege. I know what it was like - I was once an active warrior. I'll forever praise Lyndon Johnson for giving me an opportunity and I'll be the last to deny our current crop of yougsters their dream. IMHO, an 18-23 year old lacks the life experience to make an informed rational decision about volunteering for combat duty. They are still young, horny, and immortal. So old men send young men to die. We really need to bring back the custom of the generals and politicans/kings leading the troops into battle. Actually, there've been studies done on the brain at that age, and those studies indicate that the part of the brain which evaluates consequences & planning are not fully developed until the mid-20s. This probably explains why younger people can be drawn into various foolhardy activities. They may express remorse when things go wrong, but still, they did whatever they did. |
Who owns the rain?
"Van Chocstraw" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "The Daring Dufas" wrote in message ... Sanity wrote: "HeyBub" wrote in message ... "By capturing rainwater, some homeowners are breaking the law. This has put city and state governments in an awkward position-smack in the middle of competing water users and advocates, often from within their own agencies, of conserving water to protect supplies." http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...h/4314447.html Some say rainwater should follow its natural course instead of being diverted by homeowners so that the homeowner's betters can allocate the water based on need - or political pressure - to those more, um, worthy of wetting. It's for the children. If the government says that I can't keep the water that falls on my land, let the government keep the water from falling on it!!!!! A construction company dug a foundation somewhere and when it rained, the excavation was filled with water. The Feds stepped in and forbade the construction firm from pumping out the water because it had now become a wetland and had to be protected. I may have to look it up on Snopes but that's about how I remember the news story. People with lots of guns can do all sorts of asinine things to you. TDD That sounds like complete bull****. I believe it. We can't step in vernal pools on our land because we might step on a salamander. What's a vernal pool? A mud puddle after the rain. Yes, State of Maine protects vernal pools! Believe it. From another Mainer...It is true...Mud puddles are protected here .....IDIOTS....Here they can also stop you from building just because somebody likes to look at YOUR land...It'sa called "a view shed"....MORON Commies.... |
Who owns the rain?
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message m... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: It's always easy to argue against starting a war in the wrong country, rather than USE (and the worst way for Saddam and the best way for us) an unsavory dictator to maintain stability in one place while we deal with the right place (Pakistan). Bush may have a diploma, but he has no knowledge of history. He's one of many fools who think that once soldiers begin dying, it makes the cause a noble one, even if the cause is a complete mistake like Iraq (or Vietnam). I agree that "noble cause" or the "white man's burden" is sometimes hard to justify. But as for soldiers dying, don't give it a thought. Our soldiers volunteered, knowing the risk of death or injury, for the chance to kill people and blow things up. Seeking that thrill is no different from other frightful hobbies: mountain climbing, sky-diving, tightrope walking, or adultry. Our warrior class needs a war every decade or so, not only to keep the tip of the spear sharp, but to garner new recruits. Who would ever want to be a fireman if there were never any fires? No, our warriors want to be there, they trained to be there, they need to be there. And they're willing to take casualties for the privilege. I know what it was like - I was once an active warrior. I'll forever praise Lyndon Johnson for giving me an opportunity and I'll be the last to deny our current crop of yougsters their dream. I've got to hand it to you - you've got the idiot routine down to a science. takes one to know one. |
Who owns the rain?
Bill wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "HeyBub" wrote in message m... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: It's always easy to argue against starting a war in the wrong country, rather than USE (and the worst way for Saddam and the best way for us) an unsavory dictator to maintain stability in one place while we deal with the right place (Pakistan). Bush may have a diploma, but he has no knowledge of history. He's one of many fools who think that once soldiers begin dying, it makes the cause a noble one, even if the cause is a complete mistake like Iraq (or Vietnam). I agree that "noble cause" or the "white man's burden" is sometimes hard to justify. But as for soldiers dying, don't give it a thought. Our soldiers volunteered, knowing the risk of death or injury, for the chance to kill people and blow things up. Seeking that thrill is no different from other frightful hobbies: mountain climbing, sky-diving, tightrope walking, or adultry. Our warrior class needs a war every decade or so, not only to keep the tip of the spear sharp, but to garner new recruits. Who would ever want to be a fireman if there were never any fires? No, our warriors want to be there, they trained to be there, they need to be there. And they're willing to take casualties for the privilege. I know what it was like - I was once an active warrior. I'll forever praise Lyndon Johnson for giving me an opportunity and I'll be the last to deny our current crop of yougsters their dream. I've got to hand it to you - you've got the idiot routine down to a science. takes one to know one. Hmmmm now that was an interesting comeback. -- "You can lead them to LINUX but you can't make them THINK" Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586 Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/ |
Who owns the rain?
"evodawg" wrote in message
... Bill wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "HeyBub" wrote in message m... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: It's always easy to argue against starting a war in the wrong country, rather than USE (and the worst way for Saddam and the best way for us) an unsavory dictator to maintain stability in one place while we deal with the right place (Pakistan). Bush may have a diploma, but he has no knowledge of history. He's one of many fools who think that once soldiers begin dying, it makes the cause a noble one, even if the cause is a complete mistake like Iraq (or Vietnam). I agree that "noble cause" or the "white man's burden" is sometimes hard to justify. But as for soldiers dying, don't give it a thought. Our soldiers volunteered, knowing the risk of death or injury, for the chance to kill people and blow things up. Seeking that thrill is no different from other frightful hobbies: mountain climbing, sky-diving, tightrope walking, or adultry. Our warrior class needs a war every decade or so, not only to keep the tip of the spear sharp, but to garner new recruits. Who would ever want to be a fireman if there were never any fires? No, our warriors want to be there, they trained to be there, they need to be there. And they're willing to take casualties for the privilege. I know what it was like - I was once an active warrior. I'll forever praise Lyndon Johnson for giving me an opportunity and I'll be the last to deny our current crop of yougsters their dream. I've got to hand it to you - you've got the idiot routine down to a science. takes one to know one. Hmmmm now that was an interesting comeback. He was on a roll. Then his parents made him go to bed. |
Who owns the rain?
On Apr 25, 5:05*am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "evodawg" wrote in message ... Bill wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "HeyBub" wrote in message news:HaCdnSiq7_UFhG_UnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@earthlink .com... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: It's always easy to argue against starting a war in the wrong country, rather than USE (and the worst way for Saddam and the best way for us) an unsavory dictator to maintain stability in one place while we deal with the right place (Pakistan). Bush may have a diploma, but he has no knowledge of history. He's one of many fools who think that once soldiers begin dying, it makes the cause a noble one, even if the cause is a complete mistake like Iraq (or Vietnam). I agree that "noble cause" or the "white man's burden" is sometimes hard to justify. But as for soldiers dying, don't give it a thought. Our soldiers volunteered, knowing the risk of death or injury, for the chance to kill people and blow things up. Seeking that thrill is no different from other frightful hobbies: mountain climbing, sky-diving, tightrope walking, or adultry. Our warrior class needs a war every decade or so, not only to keep the tip of the spear sharp, but to garner new recruits. Who would ever want to be a fireman if there were never any fires? No, our warriors want to be there, they trained to be there, they need to be there. And they're willing to take casualties for the privilege. I know what it was like - I was once an active warrior. I'll forever praise Lyndon Johnson for giving me an opportunity and I'll be the last to deny our current crop of yougsters their dream. I've got to hand it to you - you've got the idiot routine down to a science. takes one to know one. Hmmmm now that was an interesting comeback. He was on a roll. Then his parents made him go to bed.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I think you're right. I haven't heard such brilliant repartee since...since...oh, about the 3rd grade IIANM. Harry K |
Who owns the rain?
"harry k" wrote in message
... On Apr 25, 5:05 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "evodawg" wrote in message ... Bill wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "HeyBub" wrote in message news:HaCdnSiq7_UFhG_UnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@earthlink .com... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: It's always easy to argue against starting a war in the wrong country, rather than USE (and the worst way for Saddam and the best way for us) an unsavory dictator to maintain stability in one place while we deal with the right place (Pakistan). Bush may have a diploma, but he has no knowledge of history. He's one of many fools who think that once soldiers begin dying, it makes the cause a noble one, even if the cause is a complete mistake like Iraq (or Vietnam). I agree that "noble cause" or the "white man's burden" is sometimes hard to justify. But as for soldiers dying, don't give it a thought. Our soldiers volunteered, knowing the risk of death or injury, for the chance to kill people and blow things up. Seeking that thrill is no different from other frightful hobbies: mountain climbing, sky-diving, tightrope walking, or adultry. Our warrior class needs a war every decade or so, not only to keep the tip of the spear sharp, but to garner new recruits. Who would ever want to be a fireman if there were never any fires? No, our warriors want to be there, they trained to be there, they need to be there. And they're willing to take casualties for the privilege. I know what it was like - I was once an active warrior. I'll forever praise Lyndon Johnson for giving me an opportunity and I'll be the last to deny our current crop of yougsters their dream. I've got to hand it to you - you've got the idiot routine down to a science. takes one to know one. Hmmmm now that was an interesting comeback. He was on a roll. Then his parents made him go to bed.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I think you're right. I haven't heard such brilliant repartee since...since...oh, about the 3rd grade IIANM. Harry K ============ Next: cooties |
Who owns the rain?
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"harry k" wrote in message ... On Apr 25, 5:05 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "evodawg" wrote in message ... Bill wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "HeyBub" wrote in message m... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: It's always easy to argue against starting a war in the wrong country, rather than USE (and the worst way for Saddam and the best way for us) an unsavory dictator to maintain stability in one place while we deal with the right place (Pakistan). Bush may have a diploma, but he has no knowledge of history. He's one of many fools who think that once soldiers begin dying, it makes the cause a noble one, even if the cause is a complete mistake like Iraq (or Vietnam). I agree that "noble cause" or the "white man's burden" is sometimes hard to justify. But as for soldiers dying, don't give it a thought. Our soldiers volunteered, knowing the risk of death or injury, for the chance to kill people and blow things up. Seeking that thrill is no different from other frightful hobbies: mountain climbing, sky-diving, tightrope walking, or adultry. Our warrior class needs a war every decade or so, not only to keep the tip of the spear sharp, but to garner new recruits. Who would ever want to be a fireman if there were never any fires? No, our warriors want to be there, they trained to be there, they need to be there. And they're willing to take casualties for the privilege. I know what it was like - I was once an active warrior. I'll forever praise Lyndon Johnson for giving me an opportunity and I'll be the last to deny our current crop of yougsters their dream. I've got to hand it to you - you've got the idiot routine down to a science. takes one to know one. Hmmmm now that was an interesting comeback. He was on a roll. Then his parents made him go to bed.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I think you're right. I haven't heard such brilliant repartee since...since...oh, about the 3rd grade IIANM. Harry K ============ Next: cooties and it all started with you calling Heybub an idiot. whatta brainstorm that wuz, eh? Hope you didn't hurt yourself with that 'gem'. |
Who owns the rain?
aemeijers wrote:
HeyBub wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: It's always easy to argue against starting a war in the wrong country, rather than USE (and the worst way for Saddam and the best way for us) an unsavory dictator to maintain stability in one place while we deal with the right place (Pakistan). Bush may have a diploma, but he has no knowledge of history. He's one of many fools who think that once soldiers begin dying, it makes the cause a noble one, even if the cause is a complete mistake like Iraq (or Vietnam). I agree that "noble cause" or the "white man's burden" is sometimes hard to justify. But as for soldiers dying, don't give it a thought. Our soldiers volunteered, knowing the risk of death or injury, for the chance to kill people and blow things up. Seeking that thrill is no different from other frightful hobbies: mountain climbing, sky-diving, tightrope walking, or adultry. Our warrior class needs a war every decade or so, not only to keep the tip of the spear sharp, but to garner new recruits. Who would ever want to be a fireman if there were never any fires? No, our warriors want to be there, they trained to be there, they need to be there. And they're willing to take casualties for the privilege. I know what it was like - I was once an active warrior. I'll forever praise Lyndon Johnson for giving me an opportunity and I'll be the last to deny our current crop of yougsters their dream. IMHO, an 18-23 year old lacks the life experience to make an informed rational decision about volunteering for combat duty. They are still young, horny, and immortal. So old men send young men to die. We really need to bring back the custom of the generals and politicans/kings leading the troops into battle. -- aem sends... So it's your opinion they lack life experience, darn, it's time to take away their right to vote. You see what it got us. TDD |
Who owns the rain?
Bill wrote:
Smitty Two wrote: In article , "HeyBub" wrote: Our soldiers volunteered, knowing the risk of death or injury, for the chance to kill people and blow things up. I thought they joined to earn money for college. I'm pretty sure no one told them they might actually get shot. even you are not that stoopid, r u? I can assure you that a lot of the National Guard are getting a lot more action than they wanted. |
Who owns the rain?
On Apr 23, 2:59*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "The Daring Dufas" wrote in message ... Sanity wrote: "HeyBub" wrote in message ... "By capturing rainwater, some homeowners are breaking the law. This has put city and state governments in an awkward position-smack in the middle of competing water users and advocates, often from within their own agencies, of conserving water to protect supplies." http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...h/4314447.html Some say rainwater should follow its natural course instead of being diverted by homeowners so that the homeowner's betters can allocate the water based on need - or political pressure - to those more, um, worthy of wetting. It's for the children. If the government says that I can't keep the water that falls on my land, let the government keep the water from falling on it!!!!! A construction company dug a foundation somewhere and when it rained, the excavation was filled with water. The Feds stepped in and forbade the construction firm from pumping out the water because it had now become a wetland and had to be protected. I may have to look it up on Snopes but that's about how I remember the news story. People with lots of guns can do all sorts of asinine things to you. TDD That sounds like complete bull****. I know but I swear it was a news story I came across. Many news stories turn out to be little more than male bovine droppings but gain mileage because it sounds like something that could happen. snopes.com is a good source for checking out odd stories. I *think I'll go look it up. TDD You might be thinking of this: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../MNFETSC0H.DTL Basically, developer bought a plot of land with intent to build, but before he started the land became a "wetland" owing (depending on which lawyer you listen to) to natural causes or botched nearby city drainage work. Anyhow, it's now federally protected and the developer is suing the city for a vast sum, representing (as I read it) not his lost purchase cost but rather his expected return on investment. Chip C Toronto |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:14 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter