Ed Huntress wrote:
"Stuart Wheaton" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message
. ..
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip

I don't fully understand the right's objections to him.

They don't want to back a looser Ed. That would taint their brand more than
it has been.
Should McCain do well in their first debate every nutbar on the planet will
flock to him.
This is gonna' be fun!

Oh, BTW. Costco here ran out of gasoline in the second hour of operations
today.
Every station withion 3 miles reacted by hiking their price a quarter. I
drove around and checked it out.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Stuart Wheaton" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message
. ..
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip

I don't fully understand the right's objections to him.

They don't want to back a looser Ed. That would taint their brand more
than
it has been.
Should McCain do well in their first debate every nutbar on the planet
will
flock to him.
This is gonna' be fun!

Maybe that's it. There's some kind of irrational resentment going on here,
and it looks pretty strange.


Oh, BTW. Costco here ran out of gasoline in the second hour of operations
today.
Every station withion 3 miles reacted by hiking their price a quarter. I
drove around and checked it out.

Whoopee, the free market in action! g

Methanol is $4/gallon in 55-gallon drums at the local Midget-car track.
Maybe it's time to stock up.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Stuart Wheaton" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message
. ..
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip

I don't fully understand the right's objections to him.

They don't want to back a looser Ed. That would taint their brand
more than
it has been.
Should McCain do well in their first debate every nutbar on the
planet will
flock to him.
This is gonna' be fun!

Maybe that's it. There's some kind of irrational resentment going on
here, and it looks pretty strange.


Oh, BTW. Costco here ran out of gasoline in the second hour of
operations today.
Every station withion 3 miles reacted by hiking their price a
quarter. I drove around and checked it out.

Whoopee, the free market in action! g

LOL
What's really a hoot is that the refinery that supplies them can be seen
from their parking lot.
That and the power going off and staying off few minutes after I got there
was pretty surreal.

I overheard one guy muttering something about terrorists to his wife as they
were leaving the store.
Idiot.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:09:45 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

JC wrote:
Oh, BTW. Costco here ran out of gasoline in the second hour of operations
today.
Every station withion 3 miles reacted by hiking their price a quarter. I
drove around and checked it out.

Whoopee, the free market in action! g

Can you say "illegal profiteering"? I knew you could.


Methanol is $4/gallon in 55-gallon drums at the local Midget-car track.
Maybe it's time to stock up.

Sounds like a real good idea, Ed. Send me a couple drums, eh?

--
Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants,
is the liberty of appearing. -- Thomas Paine

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:09:45 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

JC wrote:
Oh, BTW. Costco here ran out of gasoline in the second hour of
operations
today.
Every station withion 3 miles reacted by hiking their price a quarter. I
drove around and checked it out.

Whoopee, the free market in action! g

Can you say "illegal profiteering"? I knew you could.

Pfffhhht. That sounds like something a socialist would say. Watch out,
they'll take away your libertarian card. d8-)

Methanol is $4/gallon in 55-gallon drums at the local Midget-car track.
Maybe it's time to stock up.

Sounds like a real good idea, Ed. Send me a couple drums, eh?

Just remember, it takes almost twice as much methanol as gasoline to go a
given distance. I think the stoichiometric mixture is something like 8:1,
versus something around 14:1 for gasoline.

Otherwise, I'd buy a few drums. (I know about the gasket/hose/aluminum
problems with methanol in an unconverted engine, so don't worry, I'm not
going to do it.)

BTW, they've started giving a 10-cent/gallon discount for cash around here,
something I haven't seen since the '70s. Regular is $3.85 here now. How
about out there?

--
Ed Huntress

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:09:45 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

JC wrote:
Oh, BTW. Costco here ran out of gasoline in the second hour of
operations today.
Every station withion 3 miles reacted by hiking their price a
quarter. I drove around and checked it out.

Whoopee, the free market in action! g

Can you say "illegal profiteering"? I knew you could.

With an increase in price of five percent?
LOL
I doubt it.


Hey Larry,
I was hoping you'd respond with something intelligent to my "cowardice"
comment.
I'm not going to jump you if you do G
I was actually hoping you would read and consider what I'd posted and not
because they are my remarks. They aren't.
I'd just like to wake one person up from the national nightmare we've been
experiencing.

I don't really care who YOU vote for but I'd like to think that I got at
least one guy to make an informed and intelligent decision.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:09:45 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


Sounds like a real good idea, Ed. Send me a couple drums, eh?

Just remember, it takes almost twice as much methanol as gasoline to
go a given distance. I think the stoichiometric mixture is something
like 8:1, versus something around 14:1 for gasoline.

Otherwise, I'd buy a few drums. (I know about the gasket/hose/aluminum
problems with methanol in an unconverted engine, so don't worry, I'm
not going to do it.)

BTW, they've started giving a 10-cent/gallon discount for cash around
here, something I haven't seen since the '70s. Regular is $3.85 here
now. How about out there?

Ed,
The "stoichiometric value" of you tearing around your neighborhood driving a
methanol fueled toy would be worth it's weight in gold. I can picture it
now.
Madman Huntress, hair afire at 80 MPH, waving a copy of Dostoyevsky while
you shouting "I'm Mad as Hell and I'm not Going to Take it Amymore" at the
top of your lungs!

I think I just wet myself laughing....

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Stuart Wheaton" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message
. ..
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip

I don't fully understand the right's objections to him.

They don't want to back a looser Ed. That would taint their brand
more than
it has been.
Should McCain do well in their first debate every nutbar on the
planet will
flock to him.
This is gonna' be fun!

Maybe that's it. There's some kind of irrational resentment going on
here, and it looks pretty strange.


Oh, BTW. Costco here ran out of gasoline in the second hour of
operations today.
Every station withion 3 miles reacted by hiking their price a
quarter. I drove around and checked it out.

Whoopee, the free market in action! g

LOL
What's really a hoot is that the refinery that supplies them can be seen
from their parking lot.
That and the power going off and staying off few minutes after I got there
was pretty surreal.

I overheard one guy muttering something about terrorists to his wife as
they
were leaving the store.
Idiot.

Well, maybe he's thinking of Exxon-Mobil.

--
Ed Huntress

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:09:45 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


Sounds like a real good idea, Ed. Send me a couple drums, eh?

Just remember, it takes almost twice as much methanol as gasoline to
go a given distance. I think the stoichiometric mixture is something
like 8:1, versus something around 14:1 for gasoline.

Otherwise, I'd buy a few drums. (I know about the gasket/hose/aluminum
problems with methanol in an unconverted engine, so don't worry, I'm
not going to do it.)

BTW, they've started giving a 10-cent/gallon discount for cash around
here, something I haven't seen since the '70s. Regular is $3.85 here
now. How about out there?

Ed,
The "stoichiometric value" of you tearing around your neighborhood driving
a
methanol fueled toy would be worth it's weight in gold. I can picture it
now.
Madman Huntress, hair afire at 80 MPH, waving a copy of Dostoyevsky while
you shouting "I'm Mad as Hell and I'm not Going to Take it Amymore" at the
top of your lungs!

I think I just wet myself laughing....

Jeez, John. I can't stand Dosteyevsky. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:09:45 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Ed Huntress" quickly quoth:


Sounds like a real good idea, Ed. Send me a couple drums, eh?

Just remember, it takes almost twice as much methanol as gasoline to
go a given distance. I think the stoichiometric mixture is something
like 8:1, versus something around 14:1 for gasoline.

Otherwise, I'd buy a few drums. (I know about the
gasket/hose/aluminum problems with methanol in an unconverted
engine, so don't worry, I'm not going to do it.)

BTW, they've started giving a 10-cent/gallon discount for cash
around here, something I haven't seen since the '70s. Regular is
$3.85 here now. How about out there?

Ed,
The "stoichiometric value" of you tearing around your neighborhood
driving a
methanol fueled toy would be worth it's weight in gold. I can
picture it now.
Madman Huntress, hair afire at 80 MPH, waving a copy of Dostoyevsky
while you shouting "I'm Mad as Hell and I'm not Going to Take it
Amymore" at the top of your lungs!

I think I just wet myself laughing....

Jeez, John. I can't stand Dosteyevsky. d8-)

OK. Playboy then G


--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip
Whichever way the center votes, it will be a rejection of the
ideologues.
The liberals had their run and the conservatives did too. Both of
you
are
failures. Now it's time for a fresh look and some shaking up of the
old
guard. Obama may be the most likely person to do it in a couple of
generations. Or maybe not. We'll be watching to see, between now and
November, and you and the other partisans will have nothing to do
with
how we decide.

--
Ed Huntress


Actually, I don't know IF I'll vote. It depends on the local stuff.
I
may posture as a Conservative but I don't drink that Kool-Aid either.
Whoever is elected, I have contingencies to prevent too much of an
impact...I hope.

There's an allowance in the statistics for people who won't vote. d8-)

I don't know what it is you want in a president, Tom. What you have
here
is
two of the best candidates we've had in a very long time. This is one
election in which I don't think we'll be voting for the least-worst. I
just
want to be sure I've done my best to pick the better of the two.

Come on, Ed. It's an easy choice.

Hawke

We'll see for sure when Obama's domestic policy ideas get a good airing.

--
Ed Huntress


You know what is really going on here? It's a return to the old ways of
doing our democracy where one party gets to govern and it either sinks or
swims. If it sinks the people vote the opposition party in, gives it a big
enough majority to implement it's policies, and lets it sink or swim.

We just gave the republicans eight years and a big enough majority in
congress to do what it said was the best for the country. Now we see the
fruits of their efforts. Since the country is 80% against republicans right
now it seems we will give the "liberals" a crack at governing. Obama is a
liberal and will govern as one. He's moderate though and willing to deal so
I'm sure things will be better than the last eight years. I think this is a
better way than the divided government we've had. I say give the party a
chance to govern. If it does a bad job give it the boot. I think the country
is ready to give the liberals a shot at it. After all the right just had
it's shot and blew it royally. Now it's the Democrats turn.

Hawke

"*" wrote in message
news:01c8d9f8$4fc0a080$d894c3d8@race...


John R. Carroll wrote in article
...

It really isn't.
Also, what's the rush? These two have miles to go before they are done
and
will face each other in public debates.
There will be plenty left to see and digest and lots of time to do it.
For example, if Obama doesn't outright demolish McCain in their first
meeting, McCain will be percieved as the winner.
It's as easy for McCain to exceed expectations as it will be for Obama
to
fall short.

Hillary Clinton is a very recent and high profile example of a presumed
winner falling right on her ass, and in less than four months.
Have you forgotten that lesson already?



Like MOST DUMBocrats, Tweety Bird is a slow learner......He rode in the
short schoolbus as a child......


What the hell are you doing in here again? Can't you read? This thread has
nothing to do with metalworking? Get out! Stick to what you know and leave
this stuff to people with brains. You're not qualified to discuss anything
but metal. Beat it!

Hawke

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Stuart Wheaton" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message
. ..
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip

I don't fully understand the right's objections to him.

They don't want to back a looser Ed. That would taint their brand more
than
it has been.
Should McCain do well in their first debate every nutbar on the planet
will
flock to him.
This is gonna' be fun!

Oh, BTW. Costco here ran out of gasoline in the second hour of operations
today.
Every station withion 3 miles reacted by hiking their price a quarter. I
drove around and checked it out.

Is there anything better than the free market in oil?


Hawke

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:09:45 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

JC wrote:
Oh, BTW. Costco here ran out of gasoline in the second hour of
operations today.
Every station withion 3 miles reacted by hiking their price a
quarter. I drove around and checked it out.

Whoopee, the free market in action! g

Can you say "illegal profiteering"? I knew you could.

With an increase in price of five percent?
LOL
I doubt it.


Hey Larry,
I was hoping you'd respond with something intelligent to my "cowardice"
comment.
I'm not going to jump you if you do G
I was actually hoping you would read and consider what I'd posted and not
because they are my remarks. They aren't.
I'd just like to wake one person up from the national nightmare we've been
experiencing.

I don't really care who YOU vote for but I'd like to think that I got at
least one guy to make an informed and intelligent decision.

Hey, you're barking up the wrong tree. All the republicans who would have
the ability to make an informed and intelligent decision have already quit
the party and have become independents. Republicans have gone from 38% of
the electorate to less than 31%. All the ones who you could have made a case
to are gone. All that are left are the ones who would vote for the
republican ticket regardless of who is on it. They would vote for Bush again
if he was the candidate. That's how bad they are.

Hawke

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:17:35 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:09:45 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:
Whoopee, the free market in action! g

Can you say "illegal profiteering"? I knew you could.

Pfffhhht. That sounds like something a socialist would say. Watch out,
they'll take away your libertarian card. d8-)

No, we Libertarians want the gov't out of our pockets, but we still
want businesses to be fair. Profiteering is not only illegal, it's
downright wrong. Google sez:

"Definitions of profiteering on the Web:

* Profiteering is a pejorative term for the act of making a profit
by methods considered unethical. Business owners may be accused of
profiteering ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profiteering (business)

* The act of making an unreasonable profit not justified by the
corresponding assumption of risk, or by doing so unethically
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/profiteering"


Methanol is $4/gallon in 55-gallon drums at the local Midget-car track.
Maybe it's time to stock up.

Sounds like a real good idea, Ed. Send me a couple drums, eh?

Just remember, it takes almost twice as much methanol as gasoline to go a
given distance. I think the stoichiometric mixture is something like 8:1,
versus something around 14:1 for gasoline.

Damn, I forgot about that. It's alcohol. I was thinking nitromethane.
I love the smell of nitro in the morning.


Otherwise, I'd buy a few drums. (I know about the gasket/hose/aluminum
problems with methanol in an unconverted engine, so don't worry, I'm not
going to do it.)

When they switched to the mandated 10% ethanol here, my mileage went
from 14 down to 12.3mpg. I'm hoping to do considerably better next
month on the trip to CA. The Tundra stickered at 15-19mpg. sigh
I only carry about 500 pounds of tools around with me, so it's not
like I'm loading the half tone pickup down and losing gas mileage as a
result. sigh2


BTW, they've started giving a 10-cent/gallon discount for cash around here,
something I haven't seen since the '70s. Regular is $3.85 here now. How
about out there?

I get a 10-cent/gallon discount at Fred Meyer store gas stations and
just paid $4.09.9 yesterday. $72 to fill up. When I was going to
tech school in Phoenix in '72, it was 21.3 cents per gallon. I could
fill up my '68 Ford Ranch Wagon for three bucks. DAMN, I miss those
days.

--
Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants,
is the liberty of appearing. -- Thomas Paine

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:29:49 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
"John R. Carroll" quickly quoth:

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:09:45 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


Sounds like a real good idea, Ed. Send me a couple drums, eh?

Just remember, it takes almost twice as much methanol as gasoline to
go a given distance. I think the stoichiometric mixture is something
like 8:1, versus something around 14:1 for gasoline.

Ed,
The "stoichiometric value" of you tearing around your neighborhood driving a
methanol fueled toy would be worth it's weight in gold. I can picture it
now.
Madman Huntress, hair afire at 80 MPH, waving a copy of Dostoyevsky while
you shouting "I'm Mad as Hell and I'm not Going to Take it Amymore" at the
top of your lungs!

I think I just wet myself laughing....

Excellent imagery, John. (but I have much better bladder control)

--
Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants,
is the liberty of appearing. -- Thomas Paine

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:18:34 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
"John R. Carroll" quickly quoth:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:09:45 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

JC wrote:
Oh, BTW. Costco here ran out of gasoline in the second hour of
operations today.
Every station withion 3 miles reacted by hiking their price a
quarter. I drove around and checked it out.

Whoopee, the free market in action! g

Can you say "illegal profiteering"? I knew you could.

With an increase in price of five percent?
LOL
I doubt it.


Hey Larry,
I was hoping you'd respond with something intelligent to my "cowardice"
comment.
I'm not going to jump you if you do G

I don't recall seeing it, but I didn't care at all for the one where
you intimated that I was a bigot and -it- didn't warrant a reply.

I'll see if I can scare it up on Google Groups.


I was actually hoping you would read and consider what I'd posted and not
because they are my remarks. They aren't.
I'd just like to wake one person up from the national nightmare we've been
experiencing.

You n' me both. It's like Friday the 13th, Episode 96.


I don't really care who YOU vote for but I'd like to think that I got at
least one guy to make an informed and intelligent decision.

I'm already a recovering Republican. g I bailed when they got out of
hand earlier this decade. I sure wish we had a choice of candidates.
This will make the fifth time in a row (or is it more?) that it's been
a choice of the lesser of several evils. Are there no more good men
or women out there?

-
If the gods had meant us to vote, they'd have given us candidates.
--------------

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:17:35 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:09:45 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:
Whoopee, the free market in action! g

Can you say "illegal profiteering"? I knew you could.

Pfffhhht. That sounds like something a socialist would say. Watch out,
they'll take away your libertarian card. d8-)

No, we Libertarians want the gov't out of our pockets, but we still
want businesses to be fair.

And that's one of the intellectual contradictions that leads me to scoff at
libertarianism. You want it both ways: keep the government out of free
markets, but employ the government to correct the things you believe are
"unfair." To be a libertarian of that sort, you have to be comfortable with
a lot of contradictions. For starters, you have to accept the fact that
markets don't really work, that the kind of liberty you profess to believe
in is actually a sham. You really want government to look after your moral
and ethical judgments, but only if government agrees with *your* moral and
ethical judgments. Which leaves open the question of how the government is
to be controlled to accomplish these moral prescriptions. Certainly not by
means of democratic elections. That would lead to all sorts of undoctrinal
laws and presecriptions. What's left? Think about it. d8-)

Of course, most libertarians don't probe these issues enough to see where
the problems lie. That's why the whole libertarian enterprise is kind of
silly.

Profiteering is not only illegal, it's
downright wrong. Google sez:

"Definitions of profiteering on the Web:

* Profiteering is a pejorative term for the act of making a profit
by methods considered unethical. Business owners may be accused of
profiteering ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profiteering (business)

* The act of making an unreasonable profit not justified by the
corresponding assumption of risk, or by doing so unethically
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/profiteering"

Whose ethics? And, if profit making has to conform to a prescribed
correspondance between risk and reward -- and if the libertarian admits that
free markets don't always do that, because they can lead to profiteering --
who is to establish the "fair" relationship between risk and reward? That
comes awfully close to the thinking behind centrally controlled markets. It
sounds a lot like socialism.



Methanol is $4/gallon in 55-gallon drums at the local Midget-car track.
Maybe it's time to stock up.

Sounds like a real good idea, Ed. Send me a couple drums, eh?

Just remember, it takes almost twice as much methanol as gasoline to go a
given distance. I think the stoichiometric mixture is something like 8:1,
versus something around 14:1 for gasoline.

Damn, I forgot about that. It's alcohol. I was thinking nitromethane.
I love the smell of nitro in the morning.


Otherwise, I'd buy a few drums. (I know about the gasket/hose/aluminum
problems with methanol in an unconverted engine, so don't worry, I'm not
going to do it.)

When they switched to the mandated 10% ethanol here, my mileage went
from 14 down to 12.3mpg. I'm hoping to do considerably better next
month on the trip to CA. The Tundra stickered at 15-19mpg. sigh
I only carry about 500 pounds of tools around with me, so it's not
like I'm loading the half tone pickup down and losing gas mileage as a
result. sigh2

That sounds gruesome to me. My Sonata gets 30 mpg highway. My Focus gets
around 33. Next time, I'm going to buy something that *really* gets good
mileage. d8-)



BTW, they've started giving a 10-cent/gallon discount for cash around
here,
something I haven't seen since the '70s. Regular is $3.85 here now. How
about out there?

I get a 10-cent/gallon discount at Fred Meyer store gas stations and
just paid $4.09.9 yesterday. $72 to fill up. When I was going to
tech school in Phoenix in '72, it was 21.3 cents per gallon. I could
fill up my '68 Ford Ranch Wagon for three bucks. DAMN, I miss those
days.

Yeah, I was driving an MG Midget Mk III in 1970, when we had a gas-price war
in Lansing. Gas was around 23 cents, and my tank capacity was 7.1 gallons
(the car got 36 mpg). I could fill it with a buck and change.

--
Ed Huntress

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

snip



You know what is really going on here? It's a return to the old ways of
doing our democracy where one party gets to govern and it either sinks or
swims. If it sinks the people vote the opposition party in, gives it a big
enough majority to implement it's policies, and lets it sink or swim.

We just gave the republicans eight years and a big enough majority in
congress to do what it said was the best for the country. Now we see the
fruits of their efforts. Since the country is 80% against republicans
right
now it seems we will give the "liberals" a crack at governing. Obama is a
liberal and will govern as one. He's moderate though and willing to deal
so
I'm sure things will be better than the last eight years. I think this is
a
better way than the divided government we've had. I say give the party a
chance to govern. If it does a bad job give it the boot. I think the
country
is ready to give the liberals a shot at it. After all the right just had
it's shot and blew it royally. Now it's the Democrats turn.

Hawke

That's an interesting take, and those are, more or less, the historical
facts. And US politics is often viewed as a kind of pendulum.

I think that liberalism, at the level of political leaders, has been
permanently changed, however. There are a lot of conservative ideas mixed
in, as we saw under Clinton. His economic policies in some ways were more
conservative than Reagan's. He was much more in favor of balanced budgets,
for example.

And the angle on welfare also is permanently changed. "Neocon" originally
referred to some domestic-policy ideas by former liberals and
mixed-liberals, like Patrick Moynihan, who recognized how destructive
'60s-style liberal welfare policies had been. I don't think that old-time
welfare religion will be coming back to liberalism in the next swing. Obama
already has signaled that he's not going there.

This new liberalism will look more like centrism, but not completely.

--
Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:17:35 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

snip

Just remember, it takes almost twice as much methanol as gasoline to go a
given distance. I think the stoichiometric mixture is something like 8:1,
versus something around 14:1 for gasoline.

Damn, I forgot about that. It's alcohol. I was thinking nitromethane.
I love the smell of nitro in the morning.

It's even worse than I remembered. Gasoline is 14.7:1. Methanol is 6.4:1.
Ethanol is 9:1.

Of course, you can run higher compression with alcohol, but it won't make up
much of the difference in fuel usage. Also, you're screwed if you raise
compression to get the most out of alcohol, and then you can't get it.

Nitromethane runs around $40/gallon, BTW. But it's fun while it lasts.

--
Ed Huntress

Hawke wrote in article
...



What the hell are you doing in here again? Can't you read? This thread
has
nothing to do with metalworking? Get out! Stick to what you know and
leave
this stuff to people with brains. You're not qualified to discuss
anything
but metal. Beat it!






Hey Hawkie Puck!

v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v

**** YOU you arrogant asshole !!!

You continue to post exclusively non-metalworking stuff, then tell someone
who actually DOES post ON-TOPIC to leave - giving on-topic posting as a
reason.

Are you THAT ****ed up?

THAT is only part of the problem I have with ****heads like you.

Go post on rec.assholes.politics.

Ed Huntress wrote:
"
That's an interesting take, and those are, more or less, the historical
facts. And US politics is often viewed as a kind of pendulum.

I think that liberalism, at the level of political leaders, has been
permanently changed, however. There are a lot of conservative ideas mixed
in, as we saw under Clinton. His economic policies in some ways were more
conservative than Reagan's. He was much more in favor of balanced budgets,
for example.

And the angle on welfare also is permanently changed. "Neocon" originally
referred to some domestic-policy ideas by former liberals and
mixed-liberals, like Patrick Moynihan, who recognized how destructive
'60s-style liberal welfare policies had been. I don't think that old-time
welfare religion will be coming back to liberalism in the next swing. Obama
already has signaled that he's not going there.

This new liberalism will look more like centrism, but not completely.

--
Ed Huntress



from Wiki...

An alternate definition is to assume that the two poles in question
(e.g., Left/Right) are well-defined, and then (i) define as 'centrist'
any position which the Left considers too far Right and the Right
considers too far Left, and (ii) define as a 'Centrist' any person who
self-identifies more with those positions than either the Left or the
Right. The weakness in this argument is that it is difficult to
unambiguously and objectively define both poles at once, but that
difficulty affects all political definitions, not just centrists.

In practice, the two poles can only be well-defined in a specific place
at a specific time, since they differ from place to place and change
over time. Thus, "centrism" itself means different things in different
places (depending on the local political spectrum) and changes over
time. For example, ideas that were considered extremist 200 years ago
(such as democracy and universal suffrage) are considered centrist today
- while other ideas that were considered centrist 200 years ago (such as
slavery and racism) are considered extremist today.
--

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:17:35 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:09:45 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:
Whoopee, the free market in action! g

Can you say "illegal profiteering"? I knew you could.

Pfffhhht. That sounds like something a socialist would say. Watch out,
they'll take away your libertarian card. d8-)

No, we Libertarians want the gov't out of our pockets, but we still
want businesses to be fair.

And that's one of the intellectual contradictions that leads me to scoff
at libertarianism. You want it both ways: keep the government out of free
markets, but employ the government to correct the things you believe are
"unfair." To be a libertarian of that sort, you have to be comfortable
with a lot of contradictions. For starters, you have to accept the fact
that markets don't really work, that the kind of liberty you profess to
believe in is actually a sham. You really want government to look after
your moral and ethical judgments, but only if government agrees with
*your* moral and ethical judgments. Which leaves open the question of how
the government is to be controlled to accomplish these moral
prescriptions. Certainly not by means of democratic elections. That would
lead to all sorts of undoctrinal laws and presecriptions. What's left?
Think about it. d8-)

Of course, most libertarians don't probe these issues enough to see where
the problems lie. That's why the whole libertarian enterprise is kind of
silly.

Profiteering is not only illegal, it's
downright wrong. Google sez:

"Definitions of profiteering on the Web:

* Profiteering is a pejorative term for the act of making a profit
by methods considered unethical. Business owners may be accused of
profiteering ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profiteering (business)

* The act of making an unreasonable profit not justified by the
corresponding assumption of risk, or by doing so unethically
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/profiteering"

Whose ethics? And, if profit making has to conform to a prescribed
correspondance between risk and reward -- and if the libertarian admits
that free markets don't always do that, because they can lead to
profiteering -- who is to establish the "fair" relationship between risk
and reward? That comes awfully close to the thinking behind centrally
controlled markets. It sounds a lot like socialism.



Methanol is $4/gallon in 55-gallon drums at the local Midget-car track.
Maybe it's time to stock up.

Sounds like a real good idea, Ed. Send me a couple drums, eh?

Just remember, it takes almost twice as much methanol as gasoline to go a
given distance. I think the stoichiometric mixture is something like 8:1,
versus something around 14:1 for gasoline.

Damn, I forgot about that. It's alcohol. I was thinking nitromethane.
I love the smell of nitro in the morning.


Otherwise, I'd buy a few drums. (I know about the gasket/hose/aluminum
problems with methanol in an unconverted engine, so don't worry, I'm not
going to do it.)

When they switched to the mandated 10% ethanol here, my mileage went
from 14 down to 12.3mpg. I'm hoping to do considerably better next
month on the trip to CA. The Tundra stickered at 15-19mpg. sigh
I only carry about 500 pounds of tools around with me, so it's not
like I'm loading the half tone pickup down and losing gas mileage as a
result. sigh2

That sounds gruesome to me. My Sonata gets 30 mpg highway. My Focus gets
around 33. Next time, I'm going to buy something that *really* gets good
mileage. d8-)



BTW, they've started giving a 10-cent/gallon discount for cash around
here,
something I haven't seen since the '70s. Regular is $3.85 here now. How
about out there?

I get a 10-cent/gallon discount at Fred Meyer store gas stations and
just paid $4.09.9 yesterday. $72 to fill up. When I was going to
tech school in Phoenix in '72, it was 21.3 cents per gallon. I could
fill up my '68 Ford Ranch Wagon for three bucks. DAMN, I miss those
days.

Yeah, I was driving an MG Midget Mk III in 1970, when we had a gas-price
war in Lansing. Gas was around 23 cents, and my tank capacity was 7.1
gallons (the car got 36 mpg). I could fill it with a buck and change.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed: We are driving a 2003 Jetta TDI at least one occasion have seen 55mpg
on a 500mile trip. The worst was 47mpg driving 80mph into a 25mph headwind.
However, California made them illegal in 2004.
Also BTW I will take the "illegal profiteering" if it means the bloody
incompetent federal government will keep their bureacratic noses out of our
everyday business: FEMA is dictating building codes out in the desert and
establishing "Flood Plains" where there is no record of anykind of flooding
in the past 75 years. I was told that I might be required to raise my
existing structure (40X72 steel building setting on a concrete slab) 1.5'
above the existing ground grade!!! Libertarian? You bet. After seeing the
government in action with Star Wars (I was involved in Star Wars for 6
years), the current Iraq farce, BATF, DEA etc etc. I don't see how anyone
could avoid Libertarian leanings. I'm reminded of one of the complaints
registered in the Declaration of Independence: "He has erected a multitude
of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and
eat out their substance." If that doesn't describe our BLM, FEMA, BATF, DEA
etc. etc. We interfaced directly with FEMA in support of disaster relief in
the Marshall Islands for two years and were sick and tired of apoligizing to
the Marshallese people for the stupid, arrogant behavior of FEMA.
Libertarian? And the alternatives are?

Stu

Stu

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:18:34 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
"John R. Carroll" quickly quoth:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:09:45 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Ed Huntress" quickly quoth:

JC wrote:
Oh, BTW. Costco here ran out of gasoline in the second hour of
operations today.
Every station withion 3 miles reacted by hiking their price a
quarter. I drove around and checked it out.

Whoopee, the free market in action! g

Can you say "illegal profiteering"? I knew you could.

With an increase in price of five percent?
LOL
I doubt it.


Hey Larry,
I was hoping you'd respond with something intelligent to my
"cowardice" comment.
I'm not going to jump you if you do G

I don't recall seeing it, but I didn't care at all for the one where
you intimated that I was a bigot and -it- didn't warrant a reply.

I'll see if I can scare it up on Google Groups.


Here you go Larry. You can find real courage by having a look at the address
Washington made to those assembled at Newburg church. We've seen exactly the
sort of mutiny against the country and constitution in our own time but by
the Executive, not the military.


http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache...k&c d=1&gl=us

Conclusions



Government by democracy necessarily entails the danger of mob rule
because majorities are given lots of power in democratic government.
However, in the United States the tyranny of the majority has been combated
by the Bill of Rights, which outlines certain protections for all citizens,
and by the creation of an extended republic in which multiple interests
exist making tyranny of any one interest more difficult. However, irrational
majorities seeking to infringe on the rights of the targeted minority group
have throughout its history overcome the United States. Our examination of
the history of mob violence in America, the treatment of those with
unpopular ideological beliefs, and those whose race becomes identified with
the "enemy" all illustrate how easily a "frightened mob" can be formed and
how tenuous our constitutional protections become in the face of such a mob.

Courts and legislators have worked hard to identify what constitutes a
riot or mob and have tried to strike a reasonable, unprejudiced balance
between maintenance of order and protection of individual liberties.
However, the men and women who serve on the courts do not live outside of
their times; they read the newspaper and interact with society just as all
other people. This interaction then makes judges and Justices susceptible to
the propaganda and feelings of hysteria that may occur at any given time.
Although judges and Justices are charged with protecting the rights of the
minorities when they are threatened sometimes the judges and Justices are
unable to recognize the existence of a "frightened mob" and are influenced
by the hysteria the mob creates.

Clearly, the treatment of Communists and socialists throughout much of
this nation's history demonstrates how weak constitutional protections are
for those whose views are unpopular or labeled "dangerous." In addition,
treatment of the Japanese during World War II shows how easily minorities
can be denied even their most basic freedoms when a "mob" is given unchecked
influence in deciding their fate. In each of these cases a certain group
whether it be communists, socialists, or the Japanese was viewed as a threat
to the social order and so their rights were taken away.

The greatest measure of a free society is how well it maintains those
freedoms under periods of stress. It is easy to guarantee freedoms when
there is no risk involved but it is during times of war, great change, or
controversy that our fundamental freedoms take on their greatest
significance because they can be used to guarantee our participation in the
movement at hand. However, as our examination of the effects of the
frightened mob upon the law has demonstrated, the United States does not
have a strong record of defense of those fundamental rights during times of
stress. It takes simply an irrational majority to deny the rights of a
minority. When the guardians of the law and the Constitution fail to prevent
these denials of rights the sanctity of the Constitution and the democratic
system are weakened.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"
That's an interesting take, and those are, more or less, the historical
facts. And US politics is often viewed as a kind of pendulum.

I think that liberalism, at the level of political leaders, has been
permanently changed, however. There are a lot of conservative ideas mixed
in, as we saw under Clinton. His economic policies in some ways were more
conservative than Reagan's. He was much more in favor of balanced
budgets, for example.

And the angle on welfare also is permanently changed. "Neocon" originally
referred to some domestic-policy ideas by former liberals and
mixed-liberals, like Patrick Moynihan, who recognized how destructive
'60s-style liberal welfare policies had been. I don't think that old-time
welfare religion will be coming back to liberalism in the next swing.
Obama already has signaled that he's not going there.

This new liberalism will look more like centrism, but not completely.

--
Ed Huntress

from Wiki...

An alternate definition is to assume that the two poles in question (e.g.,
Left/Right) are well-defined, and then (i) define as 'centrist' any
position which the Left considers too far Right and the Right considers
too far Left, and (ii) define as a 'Centrist' any person who
self-identifies more with those positions than either the Left or the
Right. The weakness in this argument is that it is difficult to
unambiguously and objectively define both poles at once, but that
difficulty affects all political definitions, not just centrists.

In practice, the two poles can only be well-defined in a specific place at
a specific time, since they differ from place to place and change over
time. Thus, "centrism" itself means different things in different places
(depending on the local political spectrum) and changes over time. For
example, ideas that were considered extremist 200 years ago (such as
democracy and universal suffrage) are considered centrist today - while
other ideas that were considered centrist 200 years ago (such as slavery
and racism) are considered extremist today.

Of all the stupid Wikipedia entries out there, this one is near the top of
the list. d8-)

This is a sophomoric examination of the issue. There are much better
explanations around.

--
Ed Huntress

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
.. .

snip

Ed: We are driving a 2003 Jetta TDI at least one occasion have seen 55mpg
on a 500mile trip. The worst was 47mpg driving 80mph into a 25mph
headwind. However, California made them illegal in 2004.

I saw your comment about that before, Stuart, and it's remarkable. If diesel
wasn't so ridiculously overpriced I'd consider it. My former neighbor has a
turbodiesel New Beetle of about that vintage and he says he gets 45+ mpg
with it, too.

Also BTW I will take the "illegal profiteering" if it means the bloody
incompetent federal government will keep their bureacratic noses out of
our everyday business: FEMA is dictating building codes out in the desert
and establishing "Flood Plains" where there is no record of anykind of
flooding in the past 75 years. I was told that I might be required to
raise my existing structure (40X72 steel building setting on a concrete
slab) 1.5' above the existing ground grade!!! Libertarian? You bet.
After seeing the government in action with Star Wars (I was involved in
Star Wars for 6 years), the current Iraq farce, BATF, DEA etc etc. I
don't see how anyone could avoid Libertarian leanings.

Leanings, yes. Most Americans have a little streak of libertarian in them.

Political party or ideology, no. Political candidates -- well, it keeps the
libertarians from voting for jerks like Bush. g

I'm reminded of one of the complaints registered in the Declaration of
Independence: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither
swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." If
that doesn't describe our BLM, FEMA, BATF, DEA etc. etc. We interfaced
directly with FEMA in support of disaster relief in the Marshall Islands
for two years and were sick and tired of apoligizing to the Marshallese
people for the stupid, arrogant behavior of FEMA. Libertarian? And the
alternatives are?

It depends on what you want. If you want to grumble and have nothing happen,
libertarianism is great. It's the ideology for people who won't be happy no
matter what happens.

But it's a mish-mash of different ideas that just don't fit together.
Basically, self-styled libertarians are pure moralists, who have a patchwork
quilt of moral principles that depend on everyone else thinking precisely
like them. Of course, this is the opposite of what libertarians claim. But
look at the current example: calling a fortuitous profit "profiteering," and
favoring making it illegal. If those same gas stations got caught short with
long-term oil purchases, while one guy in town was buying spot-market oil
when it was on the way down and dropped prices below the cost of the other
guys, and they all took a bath, the anti-profiteering "libertarians" would
just shrug and say "that's the market for you."

It's a moralism of convenience. Libertarians will claim that it isn't true,
but few of them think it through sufficiently to recognize what they're
doing.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:11:40 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

When they switched to the mandated 10% ethanol here, my mileage went
from 14 down to 12.3mpg. I'm hoping to do considerably better next
month on the trip to CA. The Tundra stickered at 15-19mpg. sigh
I only carry about 500 pounds of tools around with me, so it's not
like I'm loading the half tone pickup down and losing gas mileage as a
result. sigh2


California????

Coming by?

Plan on leaving heavy


Gunner


"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the
name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program
until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it
happened." -- Norman Thomas, American socialist

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
.. .

snip

Ed: We are driving a 2003 Jetta TDI at least one occasion have seen
55mpg on a 500mile trip. The worst was 47mpg driving 80mph into a 25mph
headwind. However, California made them illegal in 2004.

I saw your comment about that before, Stuart, and it's remarkable. If
diesel wasn't so ridiculously overpriced I'd consider it. My former
neighbor has a turbodiesel New Beetle of about that vintage and he says he
gets 45+ mpg with it, too.

Also BTW I will take the "illegal profiteering" if it means the bloody
incompetent federal government will keep their bureacratic noses out of
our everyday business: FEMA is dictating building codes out in the
desert and establishing "Flood Plains" where there is no record of
anykind of flooding in the past 75 years. I was told that I might be
required to raise my existing structure (40X72 steel building setting on
a concrete slab) 1.5' above the existing ground grade!!! Libertarian?
You bet. After seeing the government in action with Star Wars (I was
involved in Star Wars for 6 years), the current Iraq farce, BATF, DEA etc
etc. I don't see how anyone could avoid Libertarian leanings.

Leanings, yes. Most Americans have a little streak of libertarian in them.

Political party or ideology, no. Political candidates -- well, it keeps
the libertarians from voting for jerks like Bush. g

I'm reminded of one of the complaints registered in the Declaration of
Independence: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither
swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." If
that doesn't describe our BLM, FEMA, BATF, DEA etc. etc. We interfaced
directly with FEMA in support of disaster relief in the Marshall Islands
for two years and were sick and tired of apoligizing to the Marshallese
people for the stupid, arrogant behavior of FEMA. Libertarian? And the
alternatives are?

It depends on what you want. If you want to grumble and have nothing
happen, libertarianism is great. It's the ideology for people who won't be
happy no matter what happens.
This is probably true since the "something that happens" is generally being
done by people who want to exert power over someone else. Waiting for the
government to make "something happen" is guaranteed to yield "something"
that will be resented in the near future. Most of the Libertarians see the
problems that need solving are problems better solved by something other
than an agency whose existence does not depend on their competence. The few
such as the highways and national defense are a few of the problems needing
a more global approach offered by the Feds. Even then look at the military
industrial complex and at just one example of fraud, waste and abuse created
by the military being forced to deal with "expiring funds".

But it's a mish-mash of different ideas that just don't fit together.
Basically, self-styled libertarians are pure moralists, who have a
patchwork quilt of moral principles that depend on everyone else thinking
precisely like them.

Yep. Somewhere we need to start with a guiding principle that we can all
agree on. Otherwise we just have a morass not unlike looting.

Of course, this is the opposite of what libertarians claim. But look at the
current example: calling a fortuitous profit "profiteering," and favoring
making it illegal. If those same gas stations got caught short with
long-term oil purchases, while one guy in town was buying spot-market oil
when it was on the way down and dropped prices below the cost of the other
guys, and they all took a bath, the anti-profiteering "libertarians" would
just shrug and say "that's the market for you."

It's a moralism of convenience. Libertarians will claim that it isn't
true, but few of them think it through sufficiently to recognize what
they're doing.

Ed: This can certainly be said for all of the political parties and
especially our "Representatives" . The current state of our society is to a
large measure the result of our society allowing the people who "make things
happen" to run loose. The constantly increasing size of government to do
for people what they should be doing for themselves and the things like the
Iraq war, the War on drugs which is costing a bunch and not yielding any
significant results. Who is thinking their way thru to these results?
I took a course in the Weapons Systems Acquistion Management put on by DoD.
The word results was almost never used. The whole thing was about the
process and making the process fit some model. The students didn't have a
clue as to whether the results would solve the original problem. In fact
they were all relatively ignorant and didn't care what the original problem
was. Think their way thru? A very rare activity in my experience with the
Federal Government and one usually only used in programming a path to
promotion.
One thing lacking in all of the political parties that I see is the lack of
a guiding principle. Looking on the internet for expressions of guiding
philosophy of the Democrats, the Republicans and the Libertarians, the only
one with a clear statement of philosophy was the Libertarians. I get the
impression that both the Democrats and the Republicans are for whatever will
get them elected. The Constitution, Declaration of Independence and even
the Articles of Confederation don't seem to provide a clear statement that
we are going to use as a guiding principle. At present, our basic
principle seems to be: "Whats in it for me?"
I know a bunch of people who are really for the government controlled
health care. They ain't thought that thru very far. They are blinded with
"what it can do for me" and ignore the myriad of examples of government
incompetencies and costs demonstrated over and over again. The long range
effect of some of these social programs is the reduction in the need to fend
for yourself and will ultimately lead to the downfall of the nation. Who
was it said the death of democracy is ordained when the people find out that
they can vote themselves money.
I tend to agree the formal Libertarian party seems to be just a "spit and
whittle" kind of organization. I offered to start a fund raising pyramid to
raise funds for Libertarian candidates and got zero response. I know that
I'm tired of bureaucrats stripping my freedoms away and forcing me to pay
for the process.

Stu




Ed Huntress

"*" wrote in message
news:01c8d9f9$c0df4180$d894c3d8@race...


Hawke wrote in article
.. .



Yeah, that is the fundamental weakness in our system, what do you do
when
you don't like the candidates of either party? This time we have a
choice
of
a stay the course candidate or an unknown new guy we have no idea how
he'll
govern. Great choices. Pick one or stay home. Doesn't make democracy
seem
all that great does it?

Hawke




Or, you could do the counbtry a favor and officially become an expatriot.

I say "officially" because you exhibit all the characteristics of
anti-American behaviour and thought.


Actually, it's the inbread, ignorant, crackers like you who are un-American.
You would have joined the south in the Civil War. Redneck.

Hawke

You know what is really going on here? It's a return to the old ways of
doing our democracy where one party gets to govern and it either sinks
or
swims. If it sinks the people vote the opposition party in, gives it a
big
enough majority to implement it's policies, and lets it sink or swim.

We just gave the republicans eight years and a big enough majority in
congress to do what it said was the best for the country. Now we see the
fruits of their efforts. Since the country is 80% against republicans
right
now it seems we will give the "liberals" a crack at governing. Obama is
a
liberal and will govern as one. He's moderate though and willing to deal
so
I'm sure things will be better than the last eight years. I think this
is
a
better way than the divided government we've had. I say give the party a
chance to govern. If it does a bad job give it the boot. I think the
country
is ready to give the liberals a shot at it. After all the right just had
it's shot and blew it royally. Now it's the Democrats turn.

Hawke

That's an interesting take, and those are, more or less, the historical
facts. And US politics is often viewed as a kind of pendulum.

I think that liberalism, at the level of political leaders, has been
permanently changed, however. There are a lot of conservative ideas mixed
in, as we saw under Clinton. His economic policies in some ways were more
conservative than Reagan's. He was much more in favor of balanced budgets,
for example.

And the angle on welfare also is permanently changed. "Neocon" originally
referred to some domestic-policy ideas by former liberals and
mixed-liberals, like Patrick Moynihan, who recognized how destructive
'60s-style liberal welfare policies had been. I don't think that old-time
welfare religion will be coming back to liberalism in the next swing.
Obama
already has signaled that he's not going there.

This new liberalism will look more like centrism, but not completely.

--
Ed Huntress

Rust never sleeps. Liberalism never stays the same either, it's always in a
state of flux, unlike conservatism which stays pretty much the same decade
after decade. The old 60s liberals are not what we are going to get
nowadays. But I think a return to more of the old fashioned liberal ideology
is going to come back into favor again. Clinton was not much of a real
liberal. He was too much of a deal maker and negotiator to be really
liberal. I don't know what Obama will be like but if he brings the country
back to the old style liberal ideas that are at the core of the party I
think it will do a lot to help the majority of Americans. If he's able to
bring about an improvement in average Americans' lives he's going to be a
success. We've seen the result of improving the lives of the already
affluent. It has corresponded with a real decline in the middle class. It is
time for the pendulum to swing back to where the people are more important
than the investor class. But will Obama make that happen? I don't know
enough about him to be sure what he's going to do. I'm willing to chance it
though. If he doesn't do a good job I'll be ready to vote him out in four
years, and that is something you'll never hear a right winger say about a
republican.

Hawke

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:17:35 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:09:45 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:
Whoopee, the free market in action! g

Can you say "illegal profiteering"? I knew you could.

Pfffhhht. That sounds like something a socialist would say. Watch out,
they'll take away your libertarian card. d8-)

No, we Libertarians want the gov't out of our pockets, but we still
want businesses to be fair. Profiteering is not only illegal, it's
downright wrong. Google sez:

"Definitions of profiteering on the Web:

* Profiteering is a pejorative term for the act of making a profit
by methods considered unethical. Business owners may be accused of
profiteering ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profiteering (business)

* The act of making an unreasonable profit not justified by the
corresponding assumption of risk, or by doing so unethically
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/profiteering"


Methanol is $4/gallon in 55-gallon drums at the local Midget-car track.
Maybe it's time to stock up.

Sounds like a real good idea, Ed. Send me a couple drums, eh?

Just remember, it takes almost twice as much methanol as gasoline to go a
given distance. I think the stoichiometric mixture is something like 8:1,
versus something around 14:1 for gasoline.

Damn, I forgot about that. It's alcohol. I was thinking nitromethane.
I love the smell of nitro in the morning.


Otherwise, I'd buy a few drums. (I know about the gasket/hose/aluminum
problems with methanol in an unconverted engine, so don't worry, I'm not
going to do it.)

When they switched to the mandated 10% ethanol here, my mileage went
from 14 down to 12.3mpg. I'm hoping to do considerably better next
month on the trip to CA. The Tundra stickered at 15-19mpg. sigh
I only carry about 500 pounds of tools around with me, so it's not
like I'm loading the half tone pickup down and losing gas mileage as a
result. sigh2


BTW, they've started giving a 10-cent/gallon discount for cash around
here,
something I haven't seen since the '70s. Regular is $3.85 here now. How
about out there?

I get a 10-cent/gallon discount at Fred Meyer store gas stations and
just paid $4.09.9 yesterday. $72 to fill up. When I was going to
tech school in Phoenix in '72, it was 21.3 cents per gallon. I could
fill up my '68 Ford Ranch Wagon for three bucks. DAMN, I miss those
days.


Ha Ha, wait till you get to California. Gas is 4.50 a gallon out here, for
regular. Depending on your gas tank, fill ups are getting close to 100
bucks. It's a whole new world.

Hawke

Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
m...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"
That's an interesting take, and those are, more or less, the historical
facts. And US politics is often viewed as a kind of pendulum.

I think that liberalism, at the level of political leaders, has been
permanently changed, however. There are a lot of conservative ideas mixed
in, as we saw under Clinton. His economic policies in some ways were more
conservative than Reagan's. He was much more in favor of balanced
budgets, for example.

And the angle on welfare also is permanently changed. "Neocon" originally
referred to some domestic-policy ideas by former liberals and
mixed-liberals, like Patrick Moynihan, who recognized how destructive
'60s-style liberal welfare policies had been. I don't think that old-time
welfare religion will be coming back to liberalism in the next swing.
Obama already has signaled that he's not going there.

This new liberalism will look more like centrism, but not completely.

--
Ed Huntress

from Wiki...

An alternate definition is to assume that the two poles in question (e.g.,
Left/Right) are well-defined, and then (i) define as 'centrist' any
position which the Left considers too far Right and the Right considers
too far Left, and (ii) define as a 'Centrist' any person who
self-identifies more with those positions than either the Left or the
Right. The weakness in this argument is that it is difficult to
unambiguously and objectively define both poles at once, but that
difficulty affects all political definitions, not just centrists.

In practice, the two poles can only be well-defined in a specific place at
a specific time, since they differ from place to place and change over
time. Thus, "centrism" itself means different things in different places
(depending on the local political spectrum) and changes over time. For
example, ideas that were considered extremist 200 years ago (such as
democracy and universal suffrage) are considered centrist today - while
other ideas that were considered centrist 200 years ago (such as slavery
and racism) are considered extremist today.


Of all the stupid Wikipedia entries out there, this one is near the top of
the list. d8-)

This is a sophomoric examination of the issue. There are much better
explanations around.

--
Ed Huntress



Then POST one, Ed.

Because THIS is the one most people are going to see..


"When you talk to me, define your terms"
Aristotle

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:16:22 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:17:35 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:09:45 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:
Whoopee, the free market in action! g

Can you say "illegal profiteering"? I knew you could.

Pfffhhht. That sounds like something a socialist would say. Watch out,
they'll take away your libertarian card. d8-)

No, we Libertarians want the gov't out of our pockets, but we still
want businesses to be fair.

And that's one of the intellectual contradictions that leads me to scoff at
libertarianism. You want it both ways: keep the government out of free
markets, but employ the government to correct the things you believe are
"unfair." To be a libertarian of that sort, you have to be comfortable with
a lot of contradictions. For starters, you have to accept the fact that

To profess allegiance to any politcal party demands that you be in
contradiction with either reality or beliefs at some point in time.
So what's your point?


Profiteering is not only illegal, it's
downright wrong. Google sez:

"Definitions of profiteering on the Web:

* Profiteering is a pejorative term for the act of making a profit
by methods considered unethical. Business owners may be accused of
profiteering ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profiteering (business)

* The act of making an unreasonable profit not justified by the
corresponding assumption of risk, or by doing so unethically
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/profiteering"

Whose ethics? And, if profit making has to conform to a prescribed
correspondance between risk and reward -- and if the libertarian admits that
free markets don't always do that, because they can lead to profiteering --
who is to establish the "fair" relationship between risk and reward? That
comes awfully close to the thinking behind centrally controlled markets. It
sounds a lot like socialism.

First, I thought that gas prices were set by the gov't. Stations can
make a set percentage above the price they pay to the oil companies.
Numerous articles in the newspaper over the years complaining about
collusion by the stations have fueled (sorry) that.

Second, I thought profiteering was also frowned upon by societal
norms. I don't consider that socialism, per se.


When they switched to the mandated 10% ethanol here, my mileage went
from 14 down to 12.3mpg. I'm hoping to do considerably better next
month on the trip to CA. The Tundra stickered at 15-19mpg. sigh
I only carry about 500 pounds of tools around with me, so it's not
like I'm loading the half tone pickup down and losing gas mileage as a
result. sigh2

That sounds gruesome to me. My Sonata gets 30 mpg highway. My Focus gets
around 33. Next time, I'm going to buy something that *really* gets good
mileage. d8-)

Can you carry 400 pounds of tools + plywood + a dozen 2"x6"x16' boards
in your Focus? Unfortunately, my truck is both a luxury and a
necessity. If the brakes in the Tacomas hadn't been so damned hard to
push, I might have bought one of those, with twice the fuel economy.
But they just felt -wrong-. The Tundra has 4-wheel discs and could
prolly toss beanbags out of the back of the bed with precision. 65-0
in 158 feet flat!

--
Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants,
is the liberty of appearing. -- Thomas Paine

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
m...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"
That's an interesting take, and those are, more or less, the historical
facts. And US politics is often viewed as a kind of pendulum.

I think that liberalism, at the level of political leaders, has been
permanently changed, however. There are a lot of conservative ideas
mixed in, as we saw under Clinton. His economic policies in some ways
were more conservative than Reagan's. He was much more in favor of
balanced budgets, for example.

And the angle on welfare also is permanently changed. "Neocon"
originally referred to some domestic-policy ideas by former liberals and
mixed-liberals, like Patrick Moynihan, who recognized how destructive
'60s-style liberal welfare policies had been. I don't think that
old-time welfare religion will be coming back to liberalism in the next
swing. Obama already has signaled that he's not going there.

This new liberalism will look more like centrism, but not completely.

--
Ed Huntress

from Wiki...

An alternate definition is to assume that the two poles in question
(e.g., Left/Right) are well-defined, and then (i) define as 'centrist'
any position which the Left considers too far Right and the Right
considers too far Left, and (ii) define as a 'Centrist' any person who
self-identifies more with those positions than either the Left or the
Right. The weakness in this argument is that it is difficult to
unambiguously and objectively define both poles at once, but that
difficulty affects all political definitions, not just centrists.

In practice, the two poles can only be well-defined in a specific place
at a specific time, since they differ from place to place and change over
time. Thus, "centrism" itself means different things in different places
(depending on the local political spectrum) and changes over time. For
example, ideas that were considered extremist 200 years ago (such as
democracy and universal suffrage) are considered centrist today - while
other ideas that were considered centrist 200 years ago (such as slavery
and racism) are considered extremist today.


Of all the stupid Wikipedia entries out there, this one is near the top
of the list. d8-)

This is a sophomoric examination of the issue. There are much better
explanations around.

--
Ed Huntress

Then POST one, Ed.

Because THIS is the one most people are going to see..

There is no way I'm going to try correcting Wikipedia definitions. For that
much writing I expect to be paid. d8-)

The thing to do with Wikipedia is to use it for references, IMO.

Centrism is not a compromise between the two poles. That's muddle-headed
middle-of-the-roadism (see if Wikipedia has a definition for *that*). It's a
recognition that the two poles are incomplete in themselves, and that they
lead to falling-off-the-road-and-running-into-the-ditchism, because they may
get the ying, but they never get the yang, and vice-versa.

OK? d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:17:48 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner Asch quickly quoth:

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:11:40 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

When they switched to the mandated 10% ethanol here, my mileage went
from 14 down to 12.3mpg. I'm hoping to do considerably better next
month on the trip to CA. The Tundra stickered at 15-19mpg. sigh
I only carry about 500 pounds of tools around with me, so it's not
like I'm loading the half tone pickup down and losing gas mileage as a
result. sigh2


California????

Bay area.


Coming by?

Newp, though I'd like to. The Tundra has A/C, too! That would make
the trip a whole helluva lot nicer and easier. But the extra 600
miles would cost another $150 or so in gas. Ugh!

Besides, I can't get in and out of my shop as it is.


Plan on leaving heavy

I can't afford the gas to get to the free stuff, Gunner. DAMN!
Well, I probably could if you could scare up a free mini-mill and
mini-lathe. Let me know soon, eh? vbg

--
Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants,
is the liberty of appearing. -- Thomas Paine

Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:

snip

One thing lacking in all of the political parties that I see is the lack of
a guiding principle.

Excellent rant, Stuart.

I find that to be true of people as well.

"What's in ot for me"
and
"If I don't someone else will"

seem to be the major driving philosophies.

It didn't used to be this way.


Richard

There is no way I'm going to try correcting Wikipedia definitions. For that
much writing I expect to be paid. d8-)

The thing to do with Wikipedia is to use it for references, IMO.

Centrism is not a compromise between the two poles. That's muddle-headed
middle-of-the-roadism (see if Wikipedia has a definition for *that*). It's a
recognition that the two poles are incomplete in themselves, and that they
lead to falling-off-the-road-and-running-into-the-ditchism, because they may
get the ying, but they never get the yang, and vice-versa.

OK? d8-)

--
Ed Huntress



Well be that way!


The Third Way, or Radical center, is a centrist political philosophy of
governance that embraces a mix of market and interventionist
philosophies. The Third Way rejects both socialism and laissez-faire
approaches to economic governance, but chiefly stresses technological
development, education, and competitive mechanisms to pursue economic
progress and governmental objectives.[1] Third way philosophies have
been described as a synthesis of capitalism and socialism by its
proponents.[2] One of its central aims is to protect the modern welfare
state through reforms that maintain its economic integrity.[3]

Past invocations of a political 'third way' have included the Fabian
Socialism, Distributism, Keynesian economics, Franklin Roosevelt's New
Deal, and Harold Macmillan's 1950s One Nation Conservatism.[4] A "Third
Way" approach has been adopted by some social democrats and social
liberals in many Western liberal democracies.[5] While it was pioneered
in the 1980s in Australia by the Hawke/Keating Labor governments,[6] the
most recent prominent examples are the Clinton Administration in the
United States as well as presidential candidates Hillary Clinton[7] and
Barack Obama,[8] the Labour Party (New Labour) governments of the United
Kingdom under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the Liberal Party government
of Canada under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin as well as then-prime
ministerial candidates Michael Ignatieff and Stephane Dion, and the
Australian Labor Party under Kevin Rudd and Mark Latham.

The third way has been criticized by some conservatives and libertarians
who advocate laissez-faire capitalism.[9] It has also been heavily
criticized by many social democrats and democratic socialists in
particular as a betrayal of left-wing values.

It is not to be confused with the Third Position.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:57:16 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:17:48 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner Asch quickly quoth:

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:11:40 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

When they switched to the mandated 10% ethanol here, my mileage went
from 14 down to 12.3mpg. I'm hoping to do considerably better next
month on the trip to CA. The Tundra stickered at 15-19mpg. sigh
I only carry about 500 pounds of tools around with me, so it's not
like I'm loading the half tone pickup down and losing gas mileage as a
result. sigh2


California????

Bay area.


Coming by?

Newp, though I'd like to. The Tundra has A/C, too! That would make
the trip a whole helluva lot nicer and easier. But the extra 600
miles would cost another $150 or so in gas. Ugh!

Besides, I can't get in and out of my shop as it is.


Plan on leaving heavy

I can't afford the gas to get to the free stuff, Gunner. DAMN!
Well, I probably could if you could scare up a free mini-mill and
mini-lathe. Let me know soon, eh? vbg


got a neat little japanese turret lathe......

And the 918 rivette i could maybe trade you something for...case of
Monsters or something...but none of them are Mini..though the jap
lathe is pretty close





"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the
name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program
until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it
happened." -- Norman Thomas, American socialist

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...


There is no way I'm going to try correcting Wikipedia definitions. For
that much writing I expect to be paid. d8-)

The thing to do with Wikipedia is to use it for references, IMO.

Centrism is not a compromise between the two poles. That's muddle-headed
middle-of-the-roadism (see if Wikipedia has a definition for *that*).
It's a recognition that the two poles are incomplete in themselves, and
that they lead to falling-off-the-road-and-running-into-the-ditchism,
because they may get the ying, but they never get the yang, and
vice-versa.

OK? d8-)

--
Ed Huntress



Well be that way!


The Third Way, or Radical center, is a centrist political philosophy of
governance that embraces a mix of market and interventionist philosophies.
The Third Way rejects both socialism and laissez-faire approaches to
economic governance, but chiefly stresses technological development,
education, and competitive mechanisms to pursue economic progress and
governmental objectives.[1] Third way philosophies have been described as
a synthesis of capitalism and socialism by its proponents.[2] One of its
central aims is to protect the modern welfare state through reforms that
maintain its economic integrity.[3]

Past invocations of a political 'third way' have included the Fabian
Socialism, Distributism, Keynesian economics, Franklin Roosevelt's New
Deal, and Harold Macmillan's 1950s One Nation Conservatism.[4] A "Third
Way" approach has been adopted by some social democrats and social
liberals in many Western liberal democracies.[5] While it was pioneered in
the 1980s in Australia by the Hawke/Keating Labor governments,[6] the most
recent prominent examples are the Clinton Administration in the United
States as well as presidential candidates Hillary Clinton[7] and Barack
Obama,[8] the Labour Party (New Labour) governments of the United Kingdom
under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the Liberal Party government of Canada
under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin as well as then-prime ministerial
candidates Michael Ignatieff and Stephane Dion, and the Australian Labor
Party under Kevin Rudd and Mark Latham.

The third way has been criticized by some conservatives and libertarians
who advocate laissez-faire capitalism.[9] It has also been heavily
criticized by many social democrats and democratic socialists in
particular as a betrayal of left-wing values.

It is not to be confused with the Third Position.

You'll see the US version of this phenomenon being called, mostly, "radical
centrists." They're a very intellectual, mostly young bunch. You'll be
hearing more from them I'm sure.

Us older, standard-model centrists get a little shudder when we read their
stuff, but they're real iconoclasts and always interesting.

--
Ed Huntress

cavelamb himself wrote:
Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:

snip

One thing lacking in all of the political parties that I see is the
lack of a guiding principle.

Excellent rant, Stuart.

I find that to be true of people as well.

"What's in ot for me"
and
"If I don't someone else will"

seem to be the major driving philosophies.

It didn't used to be this way.

It has always been this way.
The difference is in your definition of "me" or more correctly, us.



--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com