Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
Well, Ahnold Schwarzenegger has thrown his... huh? he doesn't wear one? never
mind... into the ring to run for California governor. It should be obvious to anybody what the theme of his campaign is going to be. Do I have to say it? TOTAL RECALL Ow! Stop that! Pete |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
Pete,
I was thinking, after the way the Senate and Assembly handled the Budget, we could use a Kindergarten Cop. Don PLAlbrecht wrote: Well, Ahnold Schwarzenegger has thrown his... huh? he doesn't wear one? never mind... into the ring to run for California governor. It should be obvious to anybody what the theme of his campaign is going to be. Do I have to say it? TOTAL RECALL Ow! Stop that! Pete |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
I was thinking, after the way the Senate and Assembly handled the
Budget, we could use a Kindergarten Cop. Oooh, I like it... And the Terminator tie-ins are obvious too. Ya know, I think he's gonna make it... Pete |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
Ah, California, the land of fruits and nuts. If I lived out there I
would vote for the stripper. :-) PLAlbrecht wrote: Well, Ahnold Schwarzenegger has thrown his... huh? he doesn't wear one? never mind... into the ring to run for California governor. It should be obvious to anybody what the theme of his campaign is going to be. Do I have to say it? TOTAL RECALL Ow! Stop that! Pete -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 22:41:16 -0400, Glenn Ashmore
wrote: Ah, California, the land of fruits and nuts. You left out the flakes. ) Sue - just waiting to cast her vote for ??????? If I lived out there I would vote for the stripper. :-) PLAlbrecht wrote: Well, Ahnold Schwarzenegger has thrown his... huh? he doesn't wear one? never mind... into the ring to run for California governor. It should be obvious to anybody what the theme of his campaign is going to be. Do I have to say it? TOTAL RECALL Ow! Stop that! Pete |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
Sue wrote: Sue - just waiting to cast her vote for ??????? Sue, You left out 493 of the ? Decisions, decisions. Don |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 04:10:29 GMT, Don Murray
wrote: Sue wrote: Sue - just waiting to cast her vote for ??????? Sue, You left out 493 of the ? Decisions, decisions. LOL. Well, I've got a couple of months to weed through the slate. Sue Don |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
I saw something that said that he was pro gun control. Too bad if it's
true. The problem is that he has said next to nothing about his positions on any kind of issues. -- Larry Bailey Illegitimi non carborundum "PLAlbrecht" wrote in message ... I was thinking, after the way the Senate and Assembly handled the Budget, we could use a Kindergarten Cop. Oooh, I like it... And the Terminator tie-ins are obvious too. Ya know, I think he's gonna make it... Pete |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
Ought to be freaky fun. More appealing than the crap coming out of
Washington these days ... body counts in a "won" war, Halliburton running Iraq, Bush showing his mastery of the unemployment and budget problems. All we need is an invasion of North Korea to make the picture complete. Yep, following Arnold will be pure balm. Regards, Marv PLAlbrecht wrote: Well, Ahnold Schwarzenegger has thrown his... huh? he doesn't wear one? never mind... into the ring to run for California governor. It should be obvious to anybody what the theme of his campaign is going to be. Do I have to say it? TOTAL RECALL Ow! Stop that! Pete |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
It should be obvious to anybody what the theme of his campaign is going to be. Do I have to say it? TOTAL RECALL Don't forget "The Running Man". Now we know what he's running from, er, for. Dave I'm just worried about becoming "Collateral Damage" in this state. Les |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
Ian Stirling wrote:
Glenn Ashmore wrote: Ah, California, the land of fruits and nuts. If I lived out there I would vote for the stripper. :-) It said on my local (BBC) news that she was a porn-star. Inquiring minds need to know which I do like to proposed tax on silicone implants. ^the -- http://inquisitor.i.am/ | | Ian Stirling. ---------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------- If you've been pounding nails with your forehead for years, it may feel strange the first time somebody hands you a hammer. But that doesn't mean that you should strap the hammer to a headband just to give your skull that old familiar jolt. -- Wayne Throop, during the `TCL Wars' |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
Arnold will be our new burgermeister. What got me was the tearful exit of
Mr. Issa when he realized he financed Arnold's opportunity. -- Roger Shoaf If you are not part of the solution, you are not dissolved in the solvent. "PLAlbrecht" wrote in message ... Well, Ahnold Schwarzenegger has thrown his... huh? he doesn't wear one? never mind... into the ring to run for California governor. It should be obvious to anybody what the theme of his campaign is going to be. Do I have to say it? TOTAL RECALL Ow! Stop that! Pete |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
Ian Stirling wrote:
Glenn Ashmore wrote: Ah, California, the land of fruits and nuts. If I lived out there I would vote for the stripper. :-) It said on my local (BBC) news that she was a porn-star. Inquiring minds need to know which Investigation found http://www.marycarey.com/ which says she's done both. -- http://inquisitor.i.am/ | | Ian Stirling. ---------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------- He had been eight years upon a project for extracting sunbeams out of cucumbers, which were to be put in vials hermetically sealed, and let out to warm the air in raw inclement summers. -- Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels" (1726) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
Ian Stirling wrote: Ian Stirling wrote: Glenn Ashmore wrote: Ah, California, the land of fruits and nuts. If I lived out there I would vote for the stripper. :-) It said on my local (BBC) news that she was a porn-star. Inquiring minds need to know which Investigation found http://www.marycarey.com/ which says she's done both. With as many candidates in the race as there are it wouldn't take more than a few bars full of good ol' boys to get her elected. Wouldn't that be a trip! :-) -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 21:42:01 -0700, "LBailey"
wrote: I saw something that said that he was pro gun control. Too bad if it's true. The problem is that he has said next to nothing about his positions on any kind of issues. He's a definate RINO. Not a true conservative. John Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get. So please respond to this message through the newsgroup. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 12:05:25 -0700, "Roger Shoaf"
wrote: Arnold will be our new burgermeister. What got me was the tearful exit of Mr. Issa when he realized he financed Arnold's opportunity. Especially since I'm sure there's much of a difference between the dems and Arnold, except that he calls himself a Republican. John Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get. So please respond to this message through the newsgroup. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
Since both Father John Flanagan and Rush Limbaugh disapprove of
Ahnold, that tends to make me like him all the more. Fr. Flanagan wrote Especially since I'm sure there's much of a difference between the dems and Arnold, except that he calls himself a Republican. http://rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/s...ape.guest.html John Yeah team. About time we had a Republican who hasn't been hijacked by the religious nutters. I also hear Ahnold is in favor of abortion (scuse me, "right to choose.") Double yeah team. I think Ahnold is going to steer clear of any gun control debate. Just look at his movies; he can't possibly take a "do as I say, not as I do" stand. All that said, another candidate who looks good right now is Peter Ueberroth. The guy can make a business run like a fine watch. Pete |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
Topless, right! Drudge cut off her head! 8-)
Leo (pearland, tx) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 16:45:33 GMT, Gunner
wrote: Im rather partial to Tom McClintock. He is perhaps the best qualified of the bunch, but as usual, doesnt stand a chance. He was the California State Controller for a long time, and during those years we had a surplus. OK... looks like we have much better choices this time than in the last gubernatorial (to determine the next goober?) election. Maybe we should do this recall, throw-the-bums-out thing more often. Let them know they don't get a free ride until the next election. Pete |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 15:45:50 GMT, Peter Albrecht
wrote: Since both Father John Flanagan and Rush Limbaugh disapprove of Ahnold, that tends to make me like him all the more. Fr. Flanagan wrote Especially since I'm sure there's much of a difference between the dems and Arnold, except that he calls himself a Republican. http://rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/s...ape.guest.html John Yeah team. About time we had a Republican who hasn't been hijacked by the religious nutters. Love you too Pete :^). We haven't had an abortion debate for what, four months? Of course since everythings relative you'd be just as much a nutter as anyone else. BTW, what is your definition of a nutter anyway? General definition since I assume there's more than just religious nuts. John Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get. So please respond to this message through the newsgroup. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 16:55:46 GMT, Peter Albrecht
wrote: On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 16:45:33 GMT, Gunner wrote: Im rather partial to Tom McClintock. He is perhaps the best qualified of the bunch, but as usual, doesnt stand a chance. He was the California State Controller for a long time, and during those years we had a surplus. OK... looks like we have much better choices this time than in the last gubernatorial (to determine the next goober?) election. Maybe we should do this recall, throw-the-bums-out thing more often. Let them know they don't get a free ride until the next election. Pete Notice the Lefties all starting the mantra (including Huffington the Space Cadet), that the recall process has outlived its usefulness and that option should be removed from the voters? Chuckle...they want to take away the only Emergency Stop button that they have left the voters. Some Leftist was babbling, on the radio the other day, how the (in effect) the voters should not be allowed to have any say over how the politicians operate. I rather think, that in any election, the loosers are immediately taken out and hung from the nearest lamp post. It would be Darwin in action. Gunner Gunner "What do you call someone in possesion of all the facts? Paranoid.-William Burroughs |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
In article , John Flanagan says...
Love you too Pete :^). We haven't had an abortion debate for what, four months? Well I've been good.... Of course since everythings relative you'd be just as much a nutter as anyone else. BTW, what is your definition of a nutter anyway? General definition since I assume there's more than just religious nuts. He was being specific. "Religious" qualified the term, so that does a pretty good job of trimming down the field. I'm sure he has about a dozen overall catagories he could trot out. Tinfoil beanies anyone? Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:25:48 GMT, Gunner
wrote: snip I rather think, that in any election, the loosers are immediately taken out and hung from the nearest lamp post. It would be Darwin in action. The trouble is that in California, at least, the losers in almost every election are the public at large. Obviously, we need more lamp posts. Al Moore |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
Gunner wrote in message . ..
snip Im rather partial to Tom McClintock. He is perhaps the best qualified of the bunch, but as usual, doesnt stand a chance. He was the California State Controller for a long time, and during those years we had a surplus. Gunner "What do you call someone in possesion of all the facts? Paranoid.-William Burroughs You might try getting your facts straight. Mr. McClintock has NEVER been the California State Controller. He has, I believe, run for the office twice and lost both times (1994 & 2002). He served seven terms in the Assembly (1982 - 1992 and 1996 - 2000) and is currently in his first term in the Senate. Jerry |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
On 10 Aug 2003 17:12:02 -0700, jim rozen
wrote: In article , John Flanagan says... Love you too Pete :^). We haven't had an abortion debate for what, four months? Well I've been good.... Of course since everythings relative you'd be just as much a nutter as anyone else. BTW, what is your definition of a nutter anyway? General definition since I assume there's more than just religious nuts. He was being specific. "Religious" qualified the term, so that does a pretty good job of trimming down the field. I'm sure he has about a dozen overall catagories he could trot out. Tinfoil beanies anyone? Well yes but I was looking for the foundational definition for a nut. One that can be applied to all catagories of nuts. But since you mention tinfoil beanies I think I see what it might be. Perhaps: Someone who believes something when even a casual examination would show it to be non-sense. Or perhaps, someone who believes something without any halfway sensible reasoning to support his conclusions. Which means someone shouldn't be considered a nut if they haven't thought the idea through *and* have not acted on the idea (taking action makes you responsible whether you have thought it through or not). Or, if someone has a "plausible", if not completely well founded, basis for believing something. A key character for either of these persons would be their willingness to listen to and address arguments against what they believe. A real nutter wouldn't do this. Of course these are relative definitions so in my opinion they aren't too good or reliable. An absolute definition would be much better :^). I must say it really does amaze me how some people can come to the conclusions they do :^). John Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get. So please respond to this message through the newsgroup. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
I'm in the Gunners court on this one - best man - I just hope it
sorts out to one on each side in the next few weeks. I've listened to Tom McClintock over the years and he hasn't wavered in this thoughts. Some do like the wind. Martin -- Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn @ home at Lion's Lair with our computer NRA LOH, NRA Life NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
"Alan Moore" wrote in message
... The trouble is that in California, at least, the losers in almost every election are the public at large. Obviously, we need more lamp posts. Especially since it's still going to be a few milion years before CA falls into the ocean. Tim -- In the immortal words of Ned Flanders: "No foot longs!" Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
In article , Peter Albrecht says...
Things like, oh, the concept of evolution, let's say. Ergo, they are real nutters. I would point out for the sake of completeness that there *are* deeply religious people out there, who see no conflict between faith and science - specifically biology and evolution. Those do exist. he's running as a Republican then, because the Libertarians might as well change their name to "The Party That Can't Get Elected." LOL! Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 23:23:35 -0500, "Tim Williams"
wrote: "Alan Moore" wrote in message .. . The trouble is that in California, at least, the losers in almost every election are the public at large. Obviously, we need more lamp posts. Especially since it's still going to be a few milion years before CA falls into the ocean. Actually, until recently (geologically speaking), things were falling out of the ocean onto California. Rising sea levels could inundate a lot of the state, as there are several hundred square miles that are less than 10 feat above mean high water, but other than that, California is likely to get larger before it gets smaller through geophysical processes. Al Moore |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
"Alan Moore" wrote in message
... Rising sea levels could inundate a lot of the state, as there are several hundred square miles that are less than 10 feat above mean high water - And some under sea level, Death Valley for instance. Imagine that hotspot being 200' underwater... Tim -- In the immortal words of Ned Flanders: "No foot longs!" Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 04:51:11 -0400, Gary R Coffman
wrote: On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 01:10:39 GMT, (John Flanagan) wrote: I have no problem with evolution either, in the generic sense. I have a problem with Darwinian "random chance" evolution as being astronomically improbable. Statistically it'd be easier to believe in God than to believe in molecules bumping together producing anything as complex as an ameoba. Perhaps that's because you are profoundly ignorant of the rules of carbon chemistry. Molecular collisions are random, but the results depend on the rules of carbon chemistry, and those rules are definitely *not* random. Am I incorrect in believing that scientists have not created any organic materials by "primordial" means more complex than amino acids? I agree about the randomness of molecular interaction and also that chemical law dictates the results of these interactions. But it's an astronomically huge, unsubstantiated leap of faith, shall we call it, to say that these chemical laws dictate the eventual assension to organic molecules as complex as DNA. Or that there have ever been in the history of the universe enough chemical interactions to make plausible the development of incredibly complex DNA even "if" the laws dictated it. I thought a main notion of science was repeatability (when applicable), why can't they repeat it? Most evolutionists seem so sure about macro evolution when there is at least an equally plausible explanation of the unsubstantiated process, namely preexistant complexity. The idea that God created the first DNA so that it would replicate and evolve itself into all the succeeding species. Basically what Darwin says, except for this conflict between design and randomness. The unresolvable difference between the two camps is that one is believes God exists and the other says there is no God. No matter how high the evidence is piled for either camp's argument, the other will not agree. Because this assumption, if you will, is the basis for their entire world view. We can't let that get shaken can we. It would take a truly honest and humble individual to change his mind and it would be a radical change affecting his whole life. John Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get. So please respond to this message through the newsgroup. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
In article , John Flanagan says...
I agree about the randomness of molecular interaction and also that chemical law dictates the results of these interactions. But it's an astronomically huge, unsubstantiated leap of faith, shall we call it, to say that these chemical laws dictate the eventual assension to organic molecules as complex as DNA. And yet that is the exact belief that many scientists, those who find no incompatibility between science and religion, place their stock in. Basically it's truly a matter of faith for them. Who are you to gainsay their faith? Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
On 12 Aug 2003 12:21:44 -0700, jim rozen
wrote: In article , John Flanagan says... I agree about the randomness of molecular interaction and also that chemical law dictates the results of these interactions. But it's an astronomically huge, unsubstantiated leap of faith, shall we call it, to say that these chemical laws dictate the eventual assension to organic molecules as complex as DNA. And yet that is the exact belief that many scientists, those who find no incompatibility between science and religion, place their stock in. Basically it's truly a matter of faith for them. Who are you to gainsay their faith? Certainly not I, as long as it's presented as faith and not science :^). The thing I find most offensive about evolution as it is typically presented publically and in the schools is that it is taught as "fact" and the only "plausible" explanation for why life exists. John Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get. So please respond to this message through the newsgroup. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
California in revolt
In article , John Flanagan says...
:^). The thing I find most offensive about evolution as it is typically presented publically and in the schools is that it is taught as "fact" and the only "plausible" explanation for why life exists. This is exactly what I am saying. The folks in question (religious scientists) absolutely DO agree that (your term here) 'random chance evolution' is fact, and is indeed the only plausible explaination why life exists. Yet they can recononcile this as being compatible with theism. Like I said, it's a matter of faith. You need to be more accepting of others' faith John. Just because you think god isn't smart enough to think up random chance evolution, or good enough to implement it, doesn't mean it hasn't been done yet. I've commented on this interchange before, but to re-iterate: "God does not play dice" (einstein) "Don't tell god what do to." (bohr) As an exercise, what were they discussing, and what gave the second gent the gumption to step on the first man's toes? Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT-California In revolt | Metalworking | |||
California Holiday | Metalworking |