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,..."

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.

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?

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

"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.

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.

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.

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

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...

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.

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...

"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, :-)

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...

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.

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.

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?

"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.

"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....

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.

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/

"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.

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

"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

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'.

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

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.

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