On 12/08/2016 12:18 PM, philo wrote:
....

What I said stands. There is never a good day to call Japan's attack a
"brilliant" move and Pearl Harbor day is the worst of all possible days.

So honest assessment is verboten? I thought that's what we fought for...

The statement, as also noted before, was _NOT_ a compliment but a
warning that enemies aren't necessarily doofuses, either.

As I've said elsewhere had he called the attack a "dastardly deed" I'd
have been fine with it.
....

But it wouldn't have made the point that it was a deliberate, calculated
and well-organized attack; precisely what Newt was warning about there
being all kinds of current parallels from many quarters.

That aside, you refuse to consider the intent and actual meaning but I'm
curious as to why you read it to begin with? Did you go searching for
Newt to see what would set you off or was it sent to you by another with
the express purpose of generating the reaction it did?

On 12/09/2016 04:04 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 14:29:52 -0600, philo wrote:

So while I was on the Army 1969/71 I was in air defense along the
Czechoslovakian boarder. Out purpose was to show the USSR our presence
and to tell the truth I did not think what we did was very much.

Now looking back at the way USSR and now Russia behaves, had the US not
been there, USSR/ Russia would have marched right in.

I was along that border in '71, stationed a distance away but we could
put a battalion of artillery forces there on the ground, easily.
Cold as **** but it was our duty ; )

- M109 155mm Self-Propelled Howitzer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naLdUA7QRNE




Yes. I am familiar with them.

On our base we also had the 1st Cav.

Here is what I did


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-72_Chaparral


I was the prime mover (driver)

Did not at all mind the cold in Germany.

Those "mickey mouse" boots were so warm I had to find the coldest place
possible to stand guard duty or I'd overheat.


There is a Facebook page for my old unit and I've managed to get a hold
of about five of my old buddies.

One I heard from...for the first time...just a few days ago.

His wife actually sent me a message and I asked her why he did not just
get his own Facebook account. She said he does have a FB account but it
will be suspended for a few more days.

Good to know my old pals are still raising hell.

He was the VTR operator


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M578_L...covery_Vehicle


He had to town me in one day when a fan belt went on my vehicle.

On 12/09/2016 03:21 PM, dpb wrote:
On 12/09/2016 3:08 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
...

.. ... and another nominated for head of EPA that denies global
warming.

Haven't you heard? They've given up "global warming" for "climate
change"...

About time somebody reigned in EPA before they bankrupt us...as well as
entitlements.




Another thing I've never understood...

even if human activity is not causing "climate change" I always figure,
what is the harm in NOT polluting?

My own town is an example...Milwaukee.

Use to be a ton a manufacturing here. Still is quite a bit but no where
near as much as before.

That said, the air is a hell of a lot cleaner now...and I mean a hell of
a lot.

There used to be foundries and tanneries all over the place...it many
areas were sooty and stunk so badly I'd drive miles out of my way to
avoid them

On 12/09/2016 04:37 PM, dpb wrote:
On 12/08/2016 12:18 PM, philo wrote:
...

What I said stands. There is never a good day to call Japan's attack a
"brilliant" move and Pearl Harbor day is the worst of all possible days.

So honest assessment is verboten? I thought that's what we fought for...

The statement, as also noted before, was _NOT_ a compliment but a
warning that enemies aren't necessarily doofuses, either.

As I've said elsewhere had he called the attack a "dastardly deed" I'd
have been fine with it.
...

But it wouldn't have made the point that it was a deliberate, calculated
and well-organized attack; precisely what Newt was warning about there
being all kinds of current parallels from many quarters.

That aside, you refuse to consider the intent and actual meaning but I'm
curious as to why you read it to begin with? Did you go searching for
Newt to see what would set you off or was it sent to you by another with
the express purpose of generating the reaction it did?



Sheesh I said that yesterday I think. Who knows what I think now.


When it comes to actual home repair questions I'm pretty serious, I like
to steer people correctly or get good advice.

When it comes to politics I don't know jack **** and probably made that
statement about Newt because it didn't sit right with me at the time.

The main thing I have against him is that he's Hubert Humphry-II

just a big gas bag.

On 12/09/2016 10:13 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 11:00:25 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 12/9/2016 9:32 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 1:01:04 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 12/8/2016 11:56 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 12:27:23 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 12/8/2016 11:19 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 11:53:36 AM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 12/08/2016 10:48 AM, trader_4 wrote:


snip

More rewriting of history.




Obviously you have done no reading on WW-II

I've read-up extensively especially Churchill.

Maybe you need to do some reading too?



Let's review, shall we? You came here and made a post about
Newt's tweet:

"75 years ago the Japanese displayed professional brilliance and
technological power launching surprises from Hawaii to the Philippines."

You told us with that post:

The above quote was a "stand alone" quote and was not been taken out of context. Had the statement been part of of a broader analysis it might have been a different issue but it's false no matter how one looks at it.

In fact, the quote was preceded immediately before by this tweet:

€œDecember 7 is a good day to remember that the world is dangerous and shattering surprise is possible even when we have been warned,€�


So, let's put it together in context:

€œDecember 7 is a good day to remember that the world is dangerous and shattering surprise is possible even when we have been warned,€�

"75 years ago the Japanese displayed professional brilliance and
technological power launching surprises from Hawaii to the Philippines."


And you think I'm the one that can't read or get things right?
And note this isn't the first time you've done this, it's happened
many times before, where you don't have the basic facts, or have
them wrong.


Good grief... Instead of arguing about silly points so you can win, why
don't you just try to have a conversation like normal people?



As usual, the village idiot weighs in. IMO, and in the opinion of at
least one other poster, it's not silly as to whether what Newt tweeted
was standalone, as Philo claims, or immediately preceded by another
tweet about Pearl that sets the context and paints a different picture.

And WTF exactly are you doing, when you engage in 100 posts about
something here?


It takes knowledge on how to "read" an entire scenario and understand
it. You, obviously, don't have that skill set.




ROFL.

Philo talkes a sentence out of context, claims there is nothing more,
its "standalone", when it was immediately preceded by another tweet
that set the context.

I'm sure he would have figured that out on his own.

ROFL.

Not only couldn't he figure it out on his own, he kept denying it,
claiming that the one tweet, was the whole ****ing thing, to use
his exact words.




Oh my. After all the posts I've made here over the years, if you take
anything I say that seriously I'd say the problem is on your end.

I know nothing at all about politics and just spout off whatever pops
into my mind at the time.

When it comes to repair work though , I take that quite seriously

"philo" wrote in message
news
On 12/09/2016 10:31 AM, dadiOH wrote:
"

It makes thinking about complex issues simpler and easier to keep score,
I guess. I had that reaction too. I mean we should be for freedom,
human rights, and to the extent these regimes oppress their people,'
we should be against that, but I'm not sure that automatically makes
them our enemies.

No reason it should IMO; however, doing so is good for some, namely, the
military and those who profit from war and turbulence. The government
too;
an enemy - real or perceived - allows them to implement things that would
not normally be allowed. Just ask Dubya.

We spent close to a half century with the country all riled up over the
godless, communist USSR who never did jack squat to us except -
possibly -
enable the allies to win WW2. During that tine the US was directly or
indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions of people all over the
world, all in the name of making the world safe for democracy, whether
they
wanted it or not.

Well, the USSR went away so we needed another enemy. We got it. We got
it
largely because of the US actions during the aforementioned half century.





Most of my life I've heard that Communists are evil. Communism is evil and
I've wondered about it.

I think it is a silly system and contra to the natural instincts of people
but I find nothing inherently evil in it. Or in socialism, capitalism or
any other "ism". It is good to question things.

Though a modified version of it seems to be working for China and Vietnam,
it certainly did not work out so well for USSR/ Russia, Cuba and N. Korea

Well, Stalin was certainly repressive, partly because power corrupts, partly
because of his nature and partly because he felt it necessary in order to
modernize and industrialize the country.

Re China/Vietnam, it is amazing what happens if we don't meddle. I imagine
Cuba would have done much better without the asinine 50 year+ embargo. N.
Korea will be stuck until their Oriental Pillsbury doughboy is gone.

As I eventually learned, Communism strictly in theory is not necessarily
evil but in practice the Communist governments are very evil.

Some are, some aren't. The same can be said for any form of government.

Possibly more than anything else, the Russian Winter is what defeated
Germany

Yes, Hitler made an error in not honoring his non-agression pact with the
USSR. Had he not done so, D-Day might well have turned out differently.
And, the fact that Stalin honored his promise to enter the war against Japan
within 3 months of defeating Germany did as much or more, IMO, as the bombs
to bring about the surrender of Japan. They were beat and knew it, wanted
to surrender but balked at the "non-conditional" part. If they continued
with the USSR in the war, they figured they were likely to lose Hokkaido to
the Russians..

On 12/09/2016 05:25 PM, dadiOH wrote:
..

I think it is a silly system and contra to the natural instincts of people
but I find nothing inherently evil in it. Or in socialism, capitalism or
any other "ism". It is good to question things.


I don't think it's necessarily evil, but in practice it just does not
work. China is an exception but they practice a laissez-faire brand of
communism




snipped for brevity

On 12/09/2016 5:11 PM, philo wrote:
....

even if human activity is not causing "climate change" I always figure,
what is the harm in NOT polluting?
....

Within reasonable political and economic reason, sure. Throwing all of
WVA under the bus for no real gain makes no sense whatsoever though nor
can wind/solar replace baseload generation irrespective of the cost.

Since melting ice sheets in Greenland have revealed settlements of
thousand or more years ago, clearly the present temperatures aren't at
all unheard of in "the big picture". This, too, will revert in the
normal chain of events over a few thousand years in all likelihood...

On 12/09/2016 5:16 PM, philo wrote:
On 12/09/2016 04:37 PM, dpb wrote:
....

curious as to why you read it to begin with? Did you go searching for
Newt to see what would set you off or was it sent to you by another with
the express purpose of generating the reaction it did?



....

When it comes to politics I don't know jack **** and probably made that
statement about Newt because it didn't sit right with me at the time.

The main thing I have against him is that he's Hubert Humphry-II
just a big gas bag.

So you've said but given that it doesn't answer the question of why
would you go searching, knowing likely whatever he was going to say
would set you off? Or, as I surmised, was it aimed your direction by
somebody else for the purpose? I'm interested in these dynamics; I
believe they're a very destructive trend in modern culture.

Of all the comparisons I can think of Newt vis a vis HH is not one I'd
make. But, what would be the point of yet another tweet saying the same
old hackeneyed phrase everybody else has used for the last 75 years? At
least, Newt gave reason to consider what he had to say whether you agree
or not. And, in this case, don't see how anybody can not think we're in
dangerous times with serious threats all around us...

philo wrote :
On 12/09/2016 04:37 PM, dpb wrote:
On 12/08/2016 12:18 PM, philo wrote:
...

What I said stands. There is never a good day to call Japan's attack a
"brilliant" move and Pearl Harbor day is the worst of all possible days.

So honest assessment is verboten? I thought that's what we fought for...

The statement, as also noted before, was _NOT_ a compliment but a
warning that enemies aren't necessarily doofuses, either.

As I've said elsewhere had he called the attack a "dastardly deed" I'd
have been fine with it.
...

But it wouldn't have made the point that it was a deliberate, calculated
and well-organized attack; precisely what Newt was warning about there
being all kinds of current parallels from many quarters.

That aside, you refuse to consider the intent and actual meaning but I'm
curious as to why you read it to begin with? Did you go searching for
Newt to see what would set you off or was it sent to you by another with
the express purpose of generating the reaction it did?



Sheesh I said that yesterday I think. Who knows what I think now.


When it comes to actual home repair questions I'm pretty serious, I like to
steer people correctly or get good advice.

When it comes to politics I don't know jack **** and probably made that
statement about Newt because it didn't sit right with me at the time.

The main thing I have against him is that he's Hubert Humphry-II

just a big gas bag.

....and tweets are like farts.

On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 3:21:05 PM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 12/09/2016 09:30 AM, trader_4 wrote:

--
Maggie

And what did Philo actually do? He came in here an totally misrepresented
what Newt said. He claimed that one sentence was the only thing Newt tweeted.
It was not. It was preceded immediately by another tweet that set the context
for what followed. THAT has nothing to do with being a "people person".
It's just being fair, sticking up for the truth. It has nothing to do with
emotion, but I can see how you would think it does. That's how you react,
with emotion and disregard for the facts, the truth.



I said that I quoted his Tweet completely.


Even though he made two other tweets that day, the one I had issue with
was the one I quoted

There you go again. Saying he made two other tweets that day makes it
sound like they were separate events, widely spaced in time. One immediately
preceded it, by two mins, and it placed what followed in context.
It's like quoting once sentence from a paragraph and then when
caught claiming that it's "standalone", saying, the author has
written other things on the subject.

On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 5:37:17 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 12/08/2016 12:18 PM, philo wrote:
...

What I said stands. There is never a good day to call Japan's attack a
"brilliant" move and Pearl Harbor day is the worst of all possible days.

So honest assessment is verboten? I thought that's what we fought for...

The statement, as also noted before, was _NOT_ a compliment but a
warning that enemies aren't necessarily doofuses, either.

As I've said elsewhere had he called the attack a "dastardly deed" I'd
have been fine with it.
...

But it wouldn't have made the point that it was a deliberate, calculated
and well-organized attack; precisely what Newt was warning about there
being all kinds of current parallels from many quarters.

That aside, you refuse to consider the intent and actual meaning but I'm
curious as to why you read it to begin with? Did you go searching for
Newt to see what would set you off or was it sent to you by another with
the express purpose of generating the reaction it did?

Most likely he got it where it seems most of his "news" comes from,
which must be some lefty, lib site with an agenda. The fact that
he didn't know that it was immediately preceded by another tweet
that set the context, speaks for itself.

On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 6:16:29 PM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 12/09/2016 04:37 PM, dpb wrote:
On 12/08/2016 12:18 PM, philo wrote:
...

What I said stands. There is never a good day to call Japan's attack a
"brilliant" move and Pearl Harbor day is the worst of all possible days.

So honest assessment is verboten? I thought that's what we fought for...

The statement, as also noted before, was _NOT_ a compliment but a
warning that enemies aren't necessarily doofuses, either.

As I've said elsewhere had he called the attack a "dastardly deed" I'd
have been fine with it.
...

But it wouldn't have made the point that it was a deliberate, calculated
and well-organized attack; precisely what Newt was warning about there
being all kinds of current parallels from many quarters.

That aside, you refuse to consider the intent and actual meaning but I'm
curious as to why you read it to begin with? Did you go searching for
Newt to see what would set you off or was it sent to you by another with
the express purpose of generating the reaction it did?



Sheesh I said that yesterday I think. Who knows what I think now.


When it comes to actual home repair questions I'm pretty serious, I like
to steer people correctly or get good advice.

When it comes to politics I don't know jack **** and probably made that
statement about Newt because it didn't sit right with me at the time.

The main thing I have against him is that he's Hubert Humphry-II

just a big gas bag.

Again, if you're problem is with "gas bags", why are you so focused
on Newt? He's not a elected official, hasn't been for a long time.
What about Reid, Pelois, Schumer and all the similar gas bags that
are Dems, in leadership positions, right now?

On 12/10/2016 08:15 AM, dpb wrote:

snip
So you've said but given that it doesn't answer the question of why
would you go searching, knowing likely whatever he was going to say
would set you off? Or, as I surmised, was it aimed your direction by
somebody else for the purpose? I'm interested in these dynamics; I
believe they're a very destructive trend in modern culture.

Of all the comparisons I can think of Newt vis a vis HH is not one I'd
make. But, what would be the point of yet another tweet saying the same
old hackeneyed phrase everybody else has used for the last 75 years? At
least, Newt gave reason to consider what he had to say whether you agree
or not. And, in this case, don't see how anybody can not think we're in
dangerous times with serious threats all around us...




Years ago I opened a Twitter account but never used it.
When Trump's Twitter tweets started filling the news, I decided to
log-on for the first time to see what he was saying...and of course
bypass the news reports.

On Dec 7, just for the hell of it I decided to see what Newt said.

Since I was new to Twitter, I did not realize at first that if one's
thinking is so muddled they can't put their idea across in one Tweet,
they will follow-up

They appear on the feed in reverse order

That said, it was that one Tweet I quoted that I had a problem with.
Even though it was pointed out to me that I was in error for not
realizing it was one tweet which was part of two others...
even had I taken all three as one continuous statement, I still would
not have felt any differently.


As to the HH comparison. No Newt and HH are not the same politically.

It's simply that they both seem to be nothing but huge gas bags.


(Additional comments will be addressed as I respond to others here)

On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 10:55:08 AM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 12/10/2016 08:15 AM, dpb wrote:

snip
So you've said but given that it doesn't answer the question of why
would you go searching, knowing likely whatever he was going to say
would set you off? Or, as I surmised, was it aimed your direction by
somebody else for the purpose? I'm interested in these dynamics; I
believe they're a very destructive trend in modern culture.

Of all the comparisons I can think of Newt vis a vis HH is not one I'd
make. But, what would be the point of yet another tweet saying the same
old hackeneyed phrase everybody else has used for the last 75 years? At
least, Newt gave reason to consider what he had to say whether you agree
or not. And, in this case, don't see how anybody can not think we're in
dangerous times with serious threats all around us...




Years ago I opened a Twitter account but never used it.
When Trump's Twitter tweets started filling the news, I decided to
log-on for the first time to see what he was saying...and of course
bypass the news reports.

On Dec 7, just for the hell of it I decided to see what Newt said.


OK, let's make sure we have this right. You created a twitter account
years ago, but never used it. On Dec 7, you decided to go to twitter
for the purpose of seeing what Newt was tweeting?




Since I was new to Twitter, I did not realize at first that if one's
thinking is so muddled they can't put their idea across in one Tweet,
they will follow-up


There you go again. Derbydad pointed out to you that there is a small
limit to how many characters can be in a tweet. Do you text? Same
thing there. Yet here you are, implying that Newt must be "so muddled"
that he can't put his idea across is one tweet. Hell, I'm not even
on Twitter, but I've heard enough about it, seen enough tweets in the
news, from Trump for example, to know that they are very short msgs,
similar to texting.


They appear on the feed in reverse order

That said, it was that one Tweet I quoted that I had a problem with.
Even though it was pointed out to me that I was in error for not
realizing it was one tweet which was part of two others...
even had I taken all three as one continuous statement, I still would
not have felt any differently.


As to the HH comparison. No Newt and HH are not the same politically.

It's simply that they both seem to be nothing but huge gas bags.


You have to go back to HH? What about Pelosi, Reid, Schumer and a
long list of *current* Democrats? Schumer is the poster boy for
gas bags. Any time anything happens, a cat farts in the woods,
Schumer calls a news conference to weigh in. Now *that* is a gas
bag!




(Additional comments will be addressed as I respond to others here)

On 12/10/2016 09:32 AM, trader_4 wrote:



snip

Most likely he got it where it seems most of his "news" comes from,
which must be some lefty, lib site with an agenda. The fact that
he didn't know that it was immediately preceded by another tweet
that set the context, speaks for itself.



Total bullroar.

Since all news sources are biased I specifically logged on to Twitter so
I could read Tweets directly and not be dependent on any news source.

It is hard to get balanced news so I choose to read news where I know
what their slant is.

Thus I read both Huffington Post and the National Review.


If Huffington has anything good to say about some Republican policy then
I figure it's probably a good one.

OTOH: If the National Review has some criticism of the Republicans I
figure it's valid.

The National Review seems to be slightly more honest that Huffington and
I assure you, after this last election even though I am a Democrat, I am
not a liberal.

Of the three friends I've lost after the election, they were all
"special snowflake" liberals that I have no time for. I'm still friends
with those who voted for Trump, though I questioned their judgment.

On 12/10/2016 08:08 AM, dpb wrote:
On 12/09/2016 5:11 PM, philo wrote:
...

even if human activity is not causing "climate change" I always figure,
what is the harm in NOT polluting?
...

Within reasonable political and economic reason, sure. Throwing all of
WVA under the bus for no real gain makes no sense whatsoever though nor
can wind/solar replace baseload generation irrespective of the cost.

Since melting ice sheets in Greenland have revealed settlements of
thousand or more years ago, clearly the present temperatures aren't at
all unheard of in "the big picture". This, too, will revert in the
normal chain of events over a few thousand years in all likelihood...



Yep. to get the "big picture" a very long time frame is needed
but what the hell, why not err on the side of caution?

On 12/10/2016 08:16 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:

That aside, you refuse to consider the intent and actual meaning but I'm
curious as to why you read it to begin with? Did you go searching for
Newt to see what would set you off or was it sent to you by another with
the express purpose of generating the reaction it did?



Sheesh I said that yesterday I think. Who knows what I think now.


When it comes to actual home repair questions I'm pretty serious, I
like to steer people correctly or get good advice.

When it comes to politics I don't know jack **** and probably made
that statement about Newt because it didn't sit right with me at the
time.

The main thing I have against him is that he's Hubert Humphry-II

just a big gas bag.

...and tweets are like farts.



Tweets indeed are like farts and the one's I've seen from Trump and
Gingrich enforce that belief.

That said...If one has an attention span long enough to think
coherently, a lot could be said in those brief 140 characters

Too bad the public figures are just as thoughtlessly impulsive as I am
on Usenet.


Now going back to Newt.

Though I did not like the statement he made on Dec 7,
I do not absolutely hate the guy either.

Today I saw on the news that Trump, while president is supposedly going
to continue some TV show he has. (Tossed my TV out 25 years ago so have
no clue what kind of bull**** goes on there)

Newt made a statement saying he thought it "weird" that Trump would do
such a thing. So doggone it. I have to say I thought exactly the same
thing.

I'll be very happy if Gingrich actually shows some guts.
I usually like surprises.

On 12/10/2016 9:55 AM, philo wrote:
....

As to the HH comparison. No Newt and HH are not the same politically.

It's simply that they both seem to be nothing but huge gas bags.

"Seem to be???" HH has been deceased for nearly 40 year, now.

Again, while you don't have to agree, Newt has virtually always very
cogent things to say, _IF_ one will actually read and consider the
content instead of just flying off the handle because have a bias
against the general leaning of his political bent.

It is that the tenor of almost all press is now to try to cultivate
emotional reaction as opposed to reasoned thought that is a prime
contributor to the state we've arrived at wherein there is essentially
no discourse.

You reject the message out of hand despite its obvious meaning just
because you're conditioned to do so given the source. That cannot be
good as a general rule.

Anyway, I've heard the explanation...still think you're missing the boat
but...

On 12/10/2016 09:29 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 3:21:05 PM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 12/09/2016 09:30 AM, trader_4 wrote:

--
Maggie

And what did Philo actually do? He came in here an totally misrepresented
what Newt said. He claimed that one sentence was the only thing Newt tweeted.
It was not. It was preceded immediately by another tweet that set the context
for what followed. THAT has nothing to do with being a "people person".
It's just being fair, sticking up for the truth. It has nothing to do with
emotion, but I can see how you would think it does. That's how you react,
with emotion and disregard for the facts, the truth.



I said that I quoted his Tweet completely.


Even though he made two other tweets that day, the one I had issue with
was the one I quoted

There you go again. Saying he made two other tweets that day makes it
sound like they were separate events, widely spaced in time. One immediately
preceded it, by two mins, and it placed what followed in context.
It's like quoting once sentence from a paragraph and then when
caught claiming that it's "standalone", saying, the author has
written other things on the subject.




If you followed my posts you will see that I quoted all three in correct
order. Yes, I mis-spoke but the bottom line is I had a problem with the
wording in the single tweet I quoted.

If I wrote an entire book and in one line I called someone an asshole,
they would not have to quote the entire book to tell me what they had a
problem with.

On 12/10/2016 10:12 AM, philo wrote:
On 12/10/2016 08:08 AM, dpb wrote:
On 12/09/2016 5:11 PM, philo wrote:
...

even if human activity is not causing "climate change" I always figure,
what is the harm in NOT polluting?
...

Within reasonable political and economic reason, sure. Throwing all of
WVA under the bus for no real gain makes no sense whatsoever though nor
can wind/solar replace baseload generation irrespective of the cost.

Since melting ice sheets in Greenland have revealed settlements of
thousand or more years ago, clearly the present temperatures aren't at
all unheard of in "the big picture". This, too, will revert in the
normal chain of events over a few thousand years in all likelihood...



Yep. to get the "big picture" a very long time frame is needed
but what the hell, why not err on the side of caution?

How about shooting for "happy medium" instead of crippling whole
sections of economy for no demonstrable gain?

On 12/10/2016 10:07 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 10:55:08 AM UTC-5, philo wrote:



snip
OK, let's make sure we have this right. You created a twitter account
years ago, but never used it. On Dec 7, you decided to go to twitter
for the purpose of seeing what Newt was tweeting?






As usual you got things wrong one more time.

But I might not have made myself clear...so I will spend the time to
give you the whole story:



I signed up for Twitter possibly seven years ago but never used it.

When I saw Trump's tweets appearing on the news all the time I decided
to actually log-on to Twitter about a month ago mostly so I could see
directly what Trump had to say.

On Dec. 7th the news sources mentioned Gingrich and his Twitter
statement so even though I am not following him I can easy access his
Tweets to see what he had to say.

So even though I have been on Twitter a month, I simply had not bothered
to log on to Newt's account until I saw a news item on it.

FWIW: I have also replied to both Trump and to Gingrich. Even though
they will not read my replies, I am sure their staffs are keeping some
kind of score.


BTW: Just so you know I am an equal opportunity insulter I took a chance
and have made a few comments on Lewis Farakhan's Facebook page.

Holy **** is that guy a phony, and I stated so right on his page a few
times. Though he never replied, he never bothered to remove my remarks
either.






Since I was new to Twitter, I did not realize at first that if one's
thinking is so muddled they can't put their idea across in one Tweet,
they will follow-up


There you go again. Derbydad pointed out to you that there is a small
limit to how many characters can be in a tweet. Do you text? Same
thing there. Yet here you are, implying that Newt must be "so muddled"
that he can't put his idea across is one tweet. Hell, I'm not even
on Twitter, but I've heard enough about it, seen enough tweets in the
news, from Trump for example, to know that they are very short msgs,
similar to texting.


They appear on the feed in reverse order

That said, it was that one Tweet I quoted that I had a problem with.
Even though it was pointed out to me that I was in error for not
realizing it was one tweet which was part of two others...
even had I taken all three as one continuous statement, I still would
not have felt any differently.


As to the HH comparison. No Newt and HH are not the same politically.

It's simply that they both seem to be nothing but huge gas bags.


You have to go back to HH? What about Pelosi, Reid, Schumer and a
long list of *current* Democrats? Schumer is the poster boy for
gas bags. Any time anything happens, a cat farts in the woods,
Schumer calls a news conference to weigh in. Now *that* is a gas
bag!




(Additional comments will be addressed as I respond to others here)

On 12/10/2016 10:21 AM, dpb wrote:
On 12/10/2016 9:55 AM, philo wrote:
...

As to the HH comparison. No Newt and HH are not the same politically.

It's simply that they both seem to be nothing but huge gas bags.

"Seem to be???" HH has been deceased for nearly 40 year, now.

Again, while you don't have to agree, Newt has virtually always very
cogent things to say, _IF_ one will actually read and consider the
content instead of just flying off the handle because have a bias
against the general leaning of his political bent.

It is that the tenor of almost all press is now to try to cultivate
emotional reaction as opposed to reasoned thought that is a prime
contributor to the state we've arrived at wherein there is essentially
no discourse.

You reject the message out of hand despite its obvious meaning just
because you're conditioned to do so given the source. That cannot be
good as a general rule.

Anyway, I've heard the explanation...still think you're missing the boat
but...


On my other reply I mentioned that Newt (today?) did say something I
agree with

so perhaps he is not quite as bad a wind bag as Humphrey.

It happens that philo formulated :
On 12/10/2016 08:16 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:

That aside, you refuse to consider the intent and actual meaning but I'm
curious as to why you read it to begin with? Did you go searching for
Newt to see what would set you off or was it sent to you by another with
the express purpose of generating the reaction it did?



Sheesh I said that yesterday I think. Who knows what I think now.


When it comes to actual home repair questions I'm pretty serious, I
like to steer people correctly or get good advice.

When it comes to politics I don't know jack **** and probably made
that statement about Newt because it didn't sit right with me at the
time.

The main thing I have against him is that he's Hubert Humphry-II

just a big gas bag.

...and tweets are like farts.



Tweets indeed are like farts and the one's I've seen from Trump and Gingrich
enforce that belief.

That said...If one has an attention span long enough to think coherently, a
lot could be said in those brief 140 characters

Too bad the public figures are just as thoughtlessly impulsive as I am on
Usenet.


Now going back to Newt.

Though I did not like the statement he made on Dec 7,
I do not absolutely hate the guy either.

Today I saw on the news that Trump, while president is supposedly going to
continue some TV show he has. (Tossed my TV out 25 years ago so have no clue
what kind of bull**** goes on there)

Newt made a statement saying he thought it "weird" that Trump would do such a
thing. So doggone it. I have to say I thought exactly the same thing.

I'll be very happy if Gingrich actually shows some guts.
I usually like surprises.

Aside from him not being wrong, do you suppose that Newt was unaware of
the manner in which his tweet would be received? I don't think so. I
think he was being a media whore with that remark. Do you think he
would praise Hitler for the brilliance of his "Final Solution" on
Memorial Day?

I think it puts him just a little closer to the likes of the Westboro
Baptist Church in this respect. Can you imagine a Japanese citizen
tweeting how brilliant we were in devising and dropping atomic bombs on
them while they are observing a Hiroshima Peace Memorial Ceremony?

On 12/10/2016 10:28 AM, dpb wrote:
On 12/10/2016 10:12 AM, philo wrote:
On 12/10/2016 08:08 AM, dpb wrote:
On 12/09/2016 5:11 PM, philo wrote:
...

even if human activity is not causing "climate change" I always figure,
what is the harm in NOT polluting?
...

Within reasonable political and economic reason, sure. Throwing all of
WVA under the bus for no real gain makes no sense whatsoever though nor
can wind/solar replace baseload generation irrespective of the cost.

Since melting ice sheets in Greenland have revealed settlements of
thousand or more years ago, clearly the present temperatures aren't at
all unheard of in "the big picture". This, too, will revert in the
normal chain of events over a few thousand years in all likelihood...



Yep. to get the "big picture" a very long time frame is needed
but what the hell, why not err on the side of caution?

How about shooting for "happy medium" instead of crippling whole
sections of economy for no demonstrable gain?



yep... I agree

On 12/10/2016 10:44 AM, philo wrote:
....

On my other reply I mentioned that Newt (today?) did say something I
agree with

so perhaps he is not quite as bad a wind bag as Humphrey.

And that's the problem ... apparently everybody has to say precisely
what agrees with your already-formed opinions in precisely-worded ways
couched to not "offend" to be other than a "windbag". That isn't
exactly the path to enlightenment.

I doubt Socrates had such a reading list or reaction to other POV...

On 12/10/2016 10:57 AM, philo wrote:
On 12/10/2016 10:28 AM, dpb wrote:
On 12/10/2016 10:12 AM, philo wrote:

....
[big snip for brevity but imposed environmental reg's]

but what the hell, why not err on the side of caution?

How about shooting for "happy medium" instead of crippling whole
sections of economy for no demonstrable gain?
....
yep... I agree

Which seems diametrically opposed to previous postings.

On 12/10/2016 10:55 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:



snip
s.

Aside from him not being wrong, do you suppose that Newt was unaware of
the manner in which his tweet would be received? I don't think so. I
think he was being a media whore with that remark. Do you think he would
praise Hitler for the brilliance of his "Final Solution" on Memorial Day?

I think it puts him just a little closer to the likes of the Westboro
Baptist Church in this respect. Can you imagine a Japanese citizen
tweeting how brilliant we were in devising and dropping atomic bombs on
them while they are observing a Hiroshima Peace Memorial Ceremony?



Thank you very much for expressing in one post what I had been trying to
do after making about a dozen tries.

On 12/10/2016 11:03 AM, dpb wrote:
On 12/10/2016 10:44 AM, philo wrote:
...

On my other reply I mentioned that Newt (today?) did say something I
agree with

so perhaps he is not quite as bad a wind bag as Humphrey.

And that's the problem ... apparently everybody has to say precisely
what agrees with your already-formed opinions in precisely-worded ways
couched to not "offend" to be other than a "windbag". That isn't
exactly the path to enlightenment.

I doubt Socrates had such a reading list or reaction to other POV...



Correct. You have it exactly...and you have expressed word for word
exactly what I wanted you to say...so you are finally getting in shape.

With one exception.

Like you, I used to always put the period outside of the quote but found
out recently that technically it is supposed to go within the quote.
Other than that you made an essentially perfect observation.

On 12/10/2016 11:08 AM, dpb wrote:
On 12/10/2016 10:57 AM, philo wrote:
On 12/10/2016 10:28 AM, dpb wrote:
On 12/10/2016 10:12 AM, philo wrote:

...
[big snip for brevity but imposed environmental reg's]

but what the hell, why not err on the side of caution?

How about shooting for "happy medium" instead of crippling whole
sections of economy for no demonstrable gain?
...
yep... I agree

Which seems diametrically opposed to previous postings.

In all the years I've been posting you have only now realized that on my
politically oriented posts I have come here simply to argue.

I'll perhaps take one side , then after a while take an opposite stance.


Even though I don't have anything of value to say, I'm getting a good
education in the process.

Even though I tend to take the opposite view from most of the people
here...with the possible exception of a few who have been in my killfile
for many years most here (not including myself of course) are pretty
bright.

On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 12:04:19 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:
He was angry at the time. People get tunnel vision
when they're angry.


So, it's my problem that other people get angry and
have tunnel vision?
I should just role over and accept BS and then
doubling down on BS?

Hey, this is just a news group. It's not a battle field.

--
Maggie