On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:37:37 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm,
Morris Dovey quickly quoth:

Larry Jaques wrote:

What are those, Morris? WAG: Air Force Jeweler g

The parachute ("Bring it back for a free exchange if it doesn't work")

Bwahahaha! I thought that was a diamond. Army Airborne, eh? Still
gotcher clicker from Normandy?


was Army - and the wings were normally either Army (most reliable
aircraft) or Air Force (usually 'more or less' airworthy).

My dad joined the Army Air Corps and it turned into the Air Force
while he was still in.


The biggest downside to that mode of travel is that there aren't any
friendly skies or hospitable destinations.

Yeah, I'm sure that "sitting duck" isn't your fave position. In that
case, HALO is your friend.

--
Smokey the Bear's rules for fire safety should apply to government:
Keep it small, keep it in a confined area, and keep an eye on it.
--John Stossel in _Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity_

In article , Morris Dovey wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

Thanks for your service, Morris.

You're welcome - but my service amounts to less than a drop in the
bucket beside that of so many others - and there're a lot of much
younger men and women who're busy earning our thanks and TLC even now.

Whether your service was great or small, you did it, and that's what is
important.

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:14:21 -0700, "John Kunkel"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:36:20 -0500, Morris Dovey
wrote:
please indicate what is false about the forward?

Your opinon of course doesnt count..please provide cites



You (as usual) want specifics but fail to provide them yourself. A credible
author would provide chapter and page numbers of supposed quotes from a
published book.

Mindless robots see "forward this to as many people as you can" at the
bottom of an e-mail and do as instructed without any thought to accuracy, as
long as it fits their preconceived ideas.

Then that explains all the hate Bush forwards we see here , and in my
various email boxes from the Droids on the Left?

Bet you give them a pass though...after all...they fit your
preconceived ideas.

Chuckle

Gunner



"Confiscating wealth from those who have earned it, inherited it,
or got lucky is never going to help 'the poor.' Poverty isn't
caused by some people having more money than others, just as obesity
isn't caused by McDonald's serving super-sized orders of French fries
Poverty, like obesity, is caused by the life choices that dictate
results." - John Tucci,

Gunner Asch wrote:

I wonder if Leo and his brothers and sisters on the far left, have
ever read Unintended Consequences, by John Ross?

Evidently not.

They really should.


An absolutely fantastic book. I keep that one on the main book shelf next to Ayn Rand's
Atlas Shrugged.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Morris Dovey wrote:

You're welcome - but my service amounts to less than a drop in the
bucket beside that of so many others - and there're a lot of much
younger men and women who're busy earning our thanks and TLC even now.

Part of service to this country is just showing up and doing your bit. Trust me, if
things flared up during your time, they would have asked or demanded more out of you.

Wes

Larry Jaques wrote:

Still gotcher clicker from Normandy?

I was late to that party - I didn't get to France until the third week
of September, 2001.

I still wear a tiny pair of jump wings on my blazer lapel. They're
meaningless to nearly everyone in the States, but in France it seemed
that everyone (even kids!) noticed and recognized them - and treated me
with a kind of respect that I'd never experienced before.

I think we can be pretty proud of the guys with the crickets.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Tim Wescott wrote:

Don't bother with Gunner when he's being political. He thinks whatever
he's told to think, and doesn't bother with critical thinking. "Truth"
in a political discussion is "a sound Gunner makes that makes you vote
the way Gunner wants".



Tim, don't want to start a fight but if you have listened to the Democratic Convention and
can think critically which I am sure you can. You would notice a whole bunch of red meat,
emotionally targeted class envy bravo sierra being spewed by various politico's.

I loved the one about how the oil companies profits were larger than Microsoft. I have a
feeling the capitalization of the oil companies is a bit larger than Microsoft. Just
throw out a statement with no data for comparison aimed at people that have no clue that
Mickeysoft ass rapes them worse on product than the oil company. The only thing the
clueless know is gas is expensive. Answer this question, if oil companies were non-profit
what would the price of gas be today? Can someone tell me? That is a serious as a heart
attack question. Same for Office and XP Pro and Vista.

I'll be glad when this election is over. I wish Hillary had won the democratic
nomination, I have faith that liberal as she is, she wouldn't go totally nuts. Obama, oh,
I think he is going to make Carter look like he had it together.

So, I hope my last choice on the republican side, John Mc Cain wins. Wow what a choice
this cycle. An honorable man but a man that I have serious worries about his 'maverick'
tendencies.


Wes

--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:49:37 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, Wes
quickly quoth:

Gunner Asch wrote:

I wonder if Leo and his brothers and sisters on the far left, have
ever read Unintended Consequences, by John Ross?

Evidently not.

They really should.


An absolutely fantastic book. I keep that one on the main book shelf next to Ayn Rand's
Atlas Shrugged.

Ditto, and I reread it earlier this year.

--
Smokey the Bear's rules for fire safety should apply to government:
Keep it small, keep it in a confined area, and keep an eye on it.
--John Stossel in _Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity_

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:04:40 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm,
Morris Dovey quickly quoth:

Larry Jaques wrote:

Still gotcher clicker from Normandy?

I was late to that party - I didn't get to France until the third week
of September, 2001.

Yeah, I saw a later post saying that you were 3 then. A bit preemptory
on my part, eh?


I still wear a tiny pair of jump wings on my blazer lapel. They're
meaningless to nearly everyone in the States, but in France it seemed
that everyone (even kids!) noticed and recognized them - and treated me
with a kind of respect that I'd never experienced before.

Most excellent, sir.


I think we can be pretty proud of the guys with the crickets.

You betcha. It's just too bad that they didn't come back and do for
the country what they did for (Oh, crap; what was that southern
state's county which was so corrupt and the veterans took it over from
the sheriff until the votes were counted? We discussed it here
withing the past couple years.)

--
Smokey the Bear's rules for fire safety should apply to government:
Keep it small, keep it in a confined area, and keep an eye on it.
--John Stossel in _Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity_

Larry Jaques wrote:

Ditto, and I reread it earlier this year.


Which one? Just finished Atlas shrugged a few months ago for the third or fourth time.

Wes

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:14:21 -0700, "John Kunkel"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:36:20 -0500, Morris Dovey
wrote:
please indicate what is false about the forward?

Your opinon of course doesnt count..please provide cites



You (as usual) want specifics but fail to provide them yourself. A
credible author would provide chapter and page numbers of supposed
quotes from a published book.

Mindless robots see "forward this to as many people as you can" at
the bottom of an e-mail and do as instructed without any thought to
accuracy, as long as it fits their preconceived ideas.

Then that explains

Nothing.
You lie as easily as you breath and your life reflects that central truth.
It's that simple.


--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:12:11 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:
snip
I wonder if Leo and his brothers and sisters on the far left, have
ever read Unintended Consequences, by John Ross?

Evidently not.

They really should.


An absolutely fantastic book. I keep that one on the main book shelf next to Ayn Rand's
Atlas Shrugged.

Ditto, and I reread it earlier this year.
snip
===========
Why limit this to the far left? Everyone should read and
understand including those on the right and the finance/banking
business.

Many of the situations described involve some sort of "tipping
point" and once this point is reached it very difficult to
impossible to return to the previous condition. "Oops -- my bad"
doesn't cut it.

For those wondering what this is all about see
http://www.amazon.com/Unintended-Con.../dp/1888118040
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1888...tu#reader-link
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1888...tu#reader-link
http://www.john-ross.net/

While much of this is about the 2nd amendment and the right to
keep and bear arms in the US, it also applies to all the other
"rights."

The UK is a prime example. They started with abrogating fire arm
ownership, but now include the governmental right to snoop in
your emails down to the town council level, unlimited cc tv
cameras to detect who spit on the side walk, etc. Even with this
knife crime is at epidemic levels. For grins, google on ASBOs to
see where this leads, and how "cold cocking" a burglar in your
house with a "rounders bat" can lead to 2 years in prison for the
home owner for assault. It can and will happen here.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner Asch
wrote on Wed, 27 Aug 2008 04:15:09 -0700
in rec.crafts.metalworking :

But the left will get their nanny state, however it will be more of a
police state. All of our rights will be abridged, left right and
other. Surviving "progressives" are likely to find themselves fondly
recalling the days of the Bu****ler Karl Rove Neo-con Theocracy, when
they were merely considered "amusing", and not threats to
civilization. And that is if it goes "well". I seriously do not want
to be trying to recover after that economic downturn.

crud. I was suppose to be in bed an hour ago.

pyotr

I wonder if Leo and his brothers and sisters on the far left, have
ever read Unintended Consequences, by John Ross?

Evidently not.

They really should.

They should read history. The Weimar Republic was denounced by
various liberals as being too oppressive. So it was replaced by a
really repressive regime - the Third Empire. Interesting, the French
number their Republics, the German's their Empires. Speaking of the
French, it is also interesting to note that Gilbert du Motier (Marquis
de Lafayette (who renounced his title _before_ the revolution) found
himself forced to flee France as a dangerous reactionary, and when he
arrived in Leige, was promptly arrested by the Austrians as a
'dangerous revolutionary.' (His is a story of getting what one didn't
bargain for.)
After the Tsar's abdication, lots of people thought provisional
Government under Kerensky was bad for Russia, then the Bolsheviks
provided the Russian people a _real_ excuse to drink.
Then we can look at Prohibition. A good intention - to curb
alcoholism in the US. Instead, it made binge drinking acceptable, not
to mention funneling large amounts of cash into the hands of the
smugglers. Arnold R... can't remember his last name. was approached
to back a small venture to smuggle a boat load of hooch in. He came
back with a counter proposal to do it 'wholesale', for a percentage.
The rest is, as they say "history." Al Capone, Eliot Ness, Meyer
Lansky, NFA 1934, Vegas, Havana, the Kaufman hearings, and Robert
Kennedy getting a little legal experience going after mobsters in the
sixties. Not to mention the war on some drugs, yada, yada, yada.

I get real worried when people start saying "Somebody ought to do
something." Because Somebody(tm) will, and it probably won't be what
people really wanted, or even thought they wanted.

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
Most of the intelligentsia haven't studied history, so much
as they've absorbed the Correct Position on "History".

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:13:29 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Arnold R... can't remember his last name.
Rothstein
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...hsteinbio.html


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:13:29 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

I get real worried when people start saying "Somebody ought to do
something." Because Somebody(tm) will, and it probably won't be what
people really wanted, or even thought they wanted.
=========
Always be careful what you ask for because you just may get
it.....


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

John R. Carroll wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:14:21 -0700, "John Kunkel"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:36:20 -0500, Morris Dovey
wrote:
please indicate what is false about the forward?

Your opinon of course doesnt count..please provide cites



You (as usual) want specifics but fail to provide them yourself. A
credible author would provide chapter and page numbers of supposed
quotes from a published book.

Mindless robots see "forward this to as many people as you can" at
the bottom of an e-mail and do as instructed without any thought to
accuracy, as long as it fits their preconceived ideas.

Then that explains


Nothing.
You lie as easily as you breath and your life reflects that central truth.
It's that simple.




I'm curious, though.

Is it really a lie if you believe it heart and soul?


--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
m...
John R. Carroll wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:14:21 -0700, "John Kunkel"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
m...

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:36:20 -0500, Morris Dovey
wrote:
please indicate what is false about the forward?

Your opinon of course doesnt count..please provide cites



You (as usual) want specifics but fail to provide them yourself. A
credible author would provide chapter and page numbers of supposed
quotes from a published book.

Mindless robots see "forward this to as many people as you can" at
the bottom of an e-mail and do as instructed without any thought to
accuracy, as long as it fits their preconceived ideas.

Then that explains


Nothing.
You lie as easily as you breath and your life reflects that central
truth.
It's that simple.




I'm curious, though.

Is it really a lie if you believe it heart and soul?

If you think that Gunner believes half the things he says, then you believe
he's a psychotic moron. He's not psychotic, and he's not a moron.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:40:29 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, Wes
quickly quoth:

Larry Jaques wrote:

Ditto, and I reread it earlier this year.


Which one? Just finished Atlas shrugged a few months ago for the third or fourth time.

I read _Atlas Shrugged_ last year and reread _Unintended Consequences_
this year. Both are outstanding books.


--
Smokey the Bear's rules for fire safety should apply to government:
Keep it small, keep it in a confined area, and keep an eye on it.
--John Stossel in _Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity_

Larry Jaques wrote:

My dad joined the Army Air Corps and it turned into the Air Force
while he was still in.


So, messing things up runs in your family? ;-)


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
Gunner Asch wrote:
From an old friend...

You might ask your "old friend" to insert the the book name and page
number where he found that info...

I have both of Obama's books here and my eyesight must be fading faster
than I knew because I'm not finding what your old friend says he did.

--
Morris Dovey


My question is what did the old friend say about the state of affairs that
the current president has produced for the country? Doesn't he even know
that things are bad? And does he know that McCain voted about 95% of the
time to support the policies of Bush? If he wants to know his enemy, did he
check to see that McCain's policies, which will be virtually the same as the
ones we have now, are what got us in the mess we're in? Did he notice that
McCain plans to keep us on the same course we've been on for the last seven
years? Apparently, he sees what Obama might do if elected but he seems to
have completely neglected to look at what four more years of the same
policies will do to the country. It looks to me like your "old friend" is
just another right winger who can see every danger in the world that can
happen if a Democrat is in the White House but is blind to the danger of
putting another clone of Bush in office. You wouldn't pay any attention to
someone like that if you had any brains.

Hawke

Morris, you can save yourself a lot of time by ignoring anything that
Gunner cuts and pastes here. It's usually from an unidentified source
that he picks up in the right-wing nutbag blogs and websites, often
from
a "military officer just returned from Iraq," or, in this case, a
"Vietnam vet who refused a promotion to general." The Special Forces
angle is a nice twist. d8-)

That was my conclusion, too. On the off chance that he might actually
have
metalworking expertise (I have precious little), I won't ignore his
posts - but I won't necessarily keep quiet if my BS detector goes off.

He doesn't bull**** about machining, and he knows quite a bit about
machine
tools and their installation. He's a self-taught machinist, like many of
us
here, and he's frank about the state of his knowledge.

However, if the subject turns to politics, click on to the next message.
g


I don't particularly mind revealing the identity of the ex-military type
on whose judgment /I/ most depend:

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Misc/DogTags.jpg

nor the fact that I, also, wore these:

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Misc/Wings.jpg

but I have never been under the illusion that either made my judgment
any
better than anyone else's.

A sensible man. There are plenty of them here; you'll enjoy the company.

--
Ed Huntress


Regarding military service being an advantage in other areas like politics,
I ran into something interesting the other day. I'm in the middle of reading
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and I came across a line about a
certain Roman general that was about to take over the job of Emperor of the
empire. It said that the military experience of a general was useless when
it came to administering an empire. In other words military experience
didn't translate to being a politician or administrator. I find it
interesting that even though they knew this hundreds of years ago an awful
lot of people nowadays don't know that fact and seem to think that being a
good general means you'll be good at everything else. In fact, good generals
rarely make good civilian leaders.

Hawke

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:36:20 -0500, Morris Dovey
wrote:

Ok Morris (why did your parents name you after a ****ty English car
anyways?) please indicate what is false about the forward?

I was named after my father, who (I was told) was named after an
ancestor whose last name was Morris and who was one of the Colonial
troublemakers.

I never got to know Morris Sr. because he died in 1945, when he was just
twenty-six and I was three. I'm not much impressed by a juvenile
smart-ass remarks about a person of whom you know absolutely nothing.

I suspect that if there were any substance to your reasoning, I would
have been named Ford. :-)

I only have two books written by Obama:

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Misc/BHObook1.html and
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Misc/BHObook2.html

I bought and read the books because I knew little about Obama, and
wanted more information. When I learned that Obama would be coming to a
town hall meeting, I re-read both books - and took them to the meeting
so I could ask a few questions about what I'd read. The author was
gracious enough to take the time to sign both books.

Your forward claims to present Obama positions and a plan attributed to
Obama's wife - and exhorts the readers (you and the people with whom you
shared the exhortation) to read his books to see for ourselves.

I'm unable to find any such positions and I found no plan that can be
attributed to Obama's wife.

As far as I've been able to determine the entire forward is false and
misleading.

Your opinon of course doesnt count..please provide cites

I don't particularly care if you value my opinion or not. The cites are
the complete texts of the two books.

I'll echo your anonymous fellow traveler's suggestion: read the books.



There is a problem. You personally read the books and therefore know what is
in them. You don't have to ask anyone what is written in them. Gummer, as
you might have guessed, has not read them. So he's making comments on books
he has never read. That ought to tell you about the kind of lightweight he
is in the debating department. He has heard what other right wing sources
say about Obama and his books. He's only ignorantly repeating the lies he's
heard from others, which he doesn't check for veracity. So you can see why
people don't put any store in his comments. If it isn't about machinery it's
always wrong. You will see more of this in the future.

Hawke

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
m...
John R. Carroll wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:14:21 -0700, "John Kunkel"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
m...

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:36:20 -0500, Morris Dovey
wrote:
please indicate what is false about the forward?

Your opinon of course doesnt count..please provide cites



You (as usual) want specifics but fail to provide them yourself. A
credible author would provide chapter and page numbers of supposed
quotes from a published book.

Mindless robots see "forward this to as many people as you can" at
the bottom of an e-mail and do as instructed without any thought to
accuracy, as long as it fits their preconceived ideas.

Then that explains


Nothing.
You lie as easily as you breath and your life reflects that central
truth.
It's that simple.




I'm curious, though.

Is it really a lie if you believe it heart and soul?

If you think that Gunner believes half the things he says, then you
believe
he's a psychotic moron. He's not psychotic, and he's not a moron.

Maybe, but he sure does a good job of acting like he is.


Hawke

Ed Huntress wrote:


Nothing.
You lie as easily as you breath and your life reflects that central
truth.
It's that simple.




I'm curious, though.

Is it really a lie if you believe it heart and soul?


If you think that Gunner believes half the things he says, then you believe
he's a psychotic moron. He's not psychotic, and he's not a moron.

--
Ed Huntress



I'm not so sure it's that simple, Ed.
Psychology being what it is...

People seem to believe a lot of strange stuff these days.
Some people seem to feel very threatened when things change on them.

Like, for instance, a black man running for President of the United States?

If one's belief system doesn't allow for that to happen, is convinced
that such a possibility must be stopped at any price, then is it lying?

I'd agree that Gunner is no moron.

But the psychotic part?

Based on what we've seen here?

WYSIWYG...

--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

From an old friend...

"Here is a note sent to myself and other current and former Special
Forces guys by one of our most experienced and respected Officers - a
full Colonel - who was offered General if he would stay in. He
elected to retire and has been working for the Special Operations
Command as a very highly ranked civilian ever since, influencing many
top secret projects for the better. A very intelligent, practical and
down to earth individual. And a very, very good personal friend of
both xxxxx xxxxxx

begin msg:

I don't care if he was born on Mars, and Michelle is a
reincarnation of Lucretia Borgia, and Torquemada is his minister, read
his books. Then remember what they taught us in Special Forces, "know
thy opposition". So go do it - read his books! When you get to the
part about the $2800 National Property tax if your house is worth more
than $125,000 and the $1000 tax payment by each family to the UN
Global Fund. Read the part about the return to the 70% tax rate and
the return to the capital gains tax that will dry up all investment,
and the death tax that will force your family to sell your farm,
business or house to pay the IRS.

Oh, and then read Michelle's plan (endorsed by Obama) for the
reparations we have to pay to all the descendents of slaves.

Oh, and then read the chapter on his proposed National Police Force
that will equal the Armed Forces in power and will be manned by
National Service (read forced service or Draft) required of all
graduating High school students and which reports only to the
President. Remember Herr Hitler and his Brown Shirts?

READ HIS BOOKS, THEN READ THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA. If Obama gets elected, the Constitution goes away, never to
be heard of again."

"Confiscating wealth from those who have earned it, inherited it,
or got lucky is never going to help 'the poor.' Poverty isn't
caused by some people having more money than others, just as obesity
isn't caused by McDonald's serving super-sized orders of French fries
Poverty, like obesity, is caused by the life choices that dictate
results." - John Tucci,

You don't REALLY expect anyone to believe your silly nonsense, do you?

Lewis

*****


In various contexts I can find info on each thing stated, or something
very close to it.

Nothing definitive, though. Mostly blurbs on fairly-far-right
websites.

There is a vietnam vet air-force general who does support obama, maybe
this is a mini-swift-boat attempt to counter the supporting general.
(General Merrill "Tony" McPeak)

Not really on either side of this, just speculating.


There is another ex military man who has just about the exact opposite views
as those expresses by Gunner's "friend". His name is Colonel Andrew J.
Basevich, now a professor of international relations at Boston University.
He's a Vietnam veteran, had a son that was killed in Iraq, and calls himself
"conservative". He has been in opposition to Bush's war on terror for
several years. He supports Obama for president and thinks the current
republican administration has done a horrible job. By the way, for Gummer's
edification, this is information you would call citable.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

Morris, you can save yourself a lot of time by ignoring anything that
Gunner cuts and pastes here. It's usually from an unidentified source
that he picks up in the right-wing nutbag blogs and websites, often
from
a "military officer just returned from Iraq," or, in this case, a
"Vietnam vet who refused a promotion to general." The Special Forces
angle is a nice twist. d8-)

That was my conclusion, too. On the off chance that he might actually
have
metalworking expertise (I have precious little), I won't ignore his
posts - but I won't necessarily keep quiet if my BS detector goes off.

He doesn't bull**** about machining, and he knows quite a bit about
machine
tools and their installation. He's a self-taught machinist, like many of
us
here, and he's frank about the state of his knowledge.

However, if the subject turns to politics, click on to the next message.
g


I don't particularly mind revealing the identity of the ex-military
type
on whose judgment /I/ most depend:

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Misc/DogTags.jpg

nor the fact that I, also, wore these:

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Misc/Wings.jpg

but I have never been under the illusion that either made my judgment
any
better than anyone else's.

A sensible man. There are plenty of them here; you'll enjoy the company.

--
Ed Huntress


Regarding military service being an advantage in other areas like
politics,
I ran into something interesting the other day. I'm in the middle of
reading
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and I came across a line about a
certain Roman general that was about to take over the job of Emperor of
the
empire. It said that the military experience of a general was useless when
it came to administering an empire. In other words military experience
didn't translate to being a politician or administrator. I find it
interesting that even though they knew this hundreds of years ago an awful
lot of people nowadays don't know that fact and seem to think that being a
good general means you'll be good at everything else. In fact, good
generals
rarely make good civilian leaders.

Hawke

Sure. They're different sets of skills and radically different modes of
working with others. An individual may be gifted with the ability to do
either job well, but there's no necessary connection between the two.

I think there's a common tendency, though, for people to desire a strongman
type of executive and a military command structure of government when a
society faces serious threats, whether they're military, economic, or
social. This is as true in liberal democracies as in monarchies. We've faced
one kind of anxiety or another for most of the period since 1929, so it
should be no surprise that sizeable portions of the electorate have favored
experienced military men for president throughout most of that period.

In general, it's a bad tendency for a liberal democracy. It tends to
encourage the manufacturing of crises and anxieties, and it encourages
totalitarian thinking on the part of the executive branch of government. A
bunker mentality and military metaphors of government are not good for the
long-term health of a democratic republic.

--
Ed Huntress

Evidently your reading comprehension issues are as yet, unrresolved.
Pity. What general were you referring to?

I failed to see any in the forwarded message.

Or is this your attempt at jocularity and buffoonery?

Gunner

I quote (you)

one of our most experienced and respected Officers - a
full Colonel - who was offered General if he would stay in.

Me, a buffoon - surely you jest Gunner - my comments were most
sincere. Its a pity that such important news has to be relayed via a
trailer in the deserts of California....if you have any more startling
news please, let us know..the world needs to know whats going on.....

Andrew VK3BFA.


Come on, are you saying that just because Gummer is an idiotic weirdo living
in the desert of Kern County his message is not to be believed? I think you
can blame that on how scared the right wingers are of the dreaded Democrats?
Why, it's driving them to fantasy. They are terrified of all the disasters
that will befall the country if those dastardly Democrats get power. Uh,
wait a minute, didn't the Democrats control the congress for 40 years and
didn't they dominate the country all during WWII? You would think having
Democrats in charge is something that has never happened and we should fear
it like nothing else. Not like what just happened in the last eight years
though, right? It's funny, these nuts have all these dire fantasies about
how horrible it will be for Democrats to be in power but the record is that
when they are the country does much better than when republicans are in
charge. It's like they are completely unaware of the string of disasters
that have come under republican rule. Starting with not preventing the 9/11
attacks, moving into Katrina, then into the credit crunch, the housing price
collapse, the 20% drop in the stock market, and on to a couple of wars that
seem to have no end, just to name a few. They gloss over all these
"disasters" as if they mean nothing and are so good as to warn us as to the
danger of Democratic majorities. Well folks, I've seen both and I'll take
the Democrats any day of the week. But then I'm not prone to fantasies.

Hawke

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


Nothing.
You lie as easily as you breath and your life reflects that central
truth.
It's that simple.




I'm curious, though.

Is it really a lie if you believe it heart and soul?


If you think that Gunner believes half the things he says, then you
believe he's a psychotic moron. He's not psychotic, and he's not a moron.

--
Ed Huntress

I'm not so sure it's that simple, Ed.
Psychology being what it is...

People seem to believe a lot of strange stuff these days.
Some people seem to feel very threatened when things change on them.

Like, for instance, a black man running for President of the United
States?

If one's belief system doesn't allow for that to happen, is convinced
that such a possibility must be stopped at any price, then is it lying?

I'd agree that Gunner is no moron.

But the psychotic part?

Based on what we've seen here?

WYSIWYG...

Gunner wears his political personna like you would wear a lead vest when
you're getting your knees X-rayed. It's a schtick, one in which he's heavily
invested. The nastiest part of it is that he lets himself demean and
dehumanize people who don't agree with him.

So, he's not psychotic. The degree of extremism one projects like that is a
reasonable measure of frustration and insecurity in varying mixtures. But he
can be an obnoxious twit.

--
Ed Huntress

Regarding military service being an advantage in other areas like
politics,
I ran into something interesting the other day. I'm in the middle of
reading
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and I came across a line about
a
certain Roman general that was about to take over the job of Emperor of
the
empire. It said that the military experience of a general was useless
when
it came to administering an empire. In other words military experience
didn't translate to being a politician or administrator. I find it
interesting that even though they knew this hundreds of years ago an
awful
lot of people nowadays don't know that fact and seem to think that being
a
good general means you'll be good at everything else. In fact, good
generals
rarely make good civilian leaders.

Hawke

Sure. They're different sets of skills and radically different modes of
working with others. An individual may be gifted with the ability to do
either job well, but there's no necessary connection between the two.

I think there's a common tendency, though, for people to desire a
strongman
type of executive and a military command structure of government when a
society faces serious threats, whether they're military, economic, or
social. This is as true in liberal democracies as in monarchies. We've
faced
one kind of anxiety or another for most of the period since 1929, so it
should be no surprise that sizeable portions of the electorate have
favored
experienced military men for president throughout most of that period.

In general, it's a bad tendency for a liberal democracy. It tends to
encourage the manufacturing of crises and anxieties, and it encourages
totalitarian thinking on the part of the executive branch of government. A
bunker mentality and military metaphors of government are not good for the
long-term health of a democratic republic.

--
Ed Huntress


I also just happened to catch a few minutes of Michael Moore's movie Bowling
for Columbine. The part I saw showed some Canadians that were being asked
about the US. The gist of what they said was that the US was always fighting
and that fighting was the way it tried to handle all it's problems. As
Canadians they didn't do things that way. Perhaps the reason why many
Americans want a strong leader or someone with military experience is for
just that reason, they expect to be involved in wars and want someone in
charge who is good at warring. As we know, the more wars a country takes
part in the less use it has for democratic principles. Lots of wars leads to
authoritarian leadership. So it's a chicken or egg thing. Do we have so many
wars because that is just how we try to solve all our problems or do we have
so many wars because we elect leaders who are ex military men who think a
war is the solution to all our problems? One thing is for sure McCain is a
guy who believes that war is a great tool for problem solving. So if we
elect him are we more likely to have more wars?

Hawke

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

Ed Huntress wrote:


Nothing.
You lie as easily as you breath and your life reflects that central
truth.
It's that simple.




I'm curious, though.

Is it really a lie if you believe it heart and soul?


If you think that Gunner believes half the things he says, then you
believe he's a psychotic moron. He's not psychotic, and he's not a moron.

--
Ed Huntress

I'm not so sure it's that simple, Ed.
Psychology being what it is...

People seem to believe a lot of strange stuff these days.
Some people seem to feel very threatened when things change on them.

Like, for instance, a black man running for President of the United
States?

If one's belief system doesn't allow for that to happen, is convinced
that such a possibility must be stopped at any price, then is it lying?

I'd agree that Gunner is no moron.

But the psychotic part?

Based on what we've seen here?

WYSIWYG...


Gunner wears his political personna like you would wear a lead vest when
you're getting your knees X-rayed. It's a schtick, one in which he's heavily
invested. The nastiest part of it is that he lets himself demean and
dehumanize people who don't agree with him.

So, he's not psychotic. The degree of extremism one projects like that is a
reasonable measure of frustration and insecurity in varying mixtures. But he
can be an obnoxious twit.

--
Ed Huntress




Fair 'nuff...

--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:14:21 -0700, "John Kunkel"
wrote:


Mindless robots see "forward this to as many people as you can" at the
bottom of an e-mail and do as instructed without any thought to accuracy,
as
long as it fits their preconceived ideas.


Then that explains all the hate Bush forwards we see here , and in my
various email boxes from the Droids on the Left?

A mindless robot is a mindless robot, regardless of political persuasion.
One does not need fictitious quotes from a book to make Dubya look like a
lying scoundrel; it comes natural to him.


Bet you give them a pass though...after all...they fit your
preconceived ideas.

Your ASSumptions are as erroneous as your "forwards".

On 2008-08-28, John Kunkel wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
Then that explains all the hate Bush forwards we see here , and in my
various email boxes from the Droids on the Left?

A mindless robot is a mindless robot, regardless of political
persuasion. One does not need fictitious quotes from a book to make
Dubya look like a lying scoundrel; it comes natural to him.

Could someone please provide a recent example of a "hate Bush forward"
posted here to this newsgroup.

i

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

snip



I also just happened to catch a few minutes of Michael Moore's movie
Bowling
for Columbine. The part I saw showed some Canadians that were being asked
about the US. The gist of what they said was that the US was always
fighting
and that fighting was the way it tried to handle all it's problems. As
Canadians they didn't do things that way. Perhaps the reason why many
Americans want a strong leader or someone with military experience is for
just that reason, they expect to be involved in wars and want someone in
charge who is good at warring. As we know, the more wars a country takes
part in the less use it has for democratic principles. Lots of wars leads
to
authoritarian leadership. So it's a chicken or egg thing. Do we have so
many
wars because that is just how we try to solve all our problems or do we
have
so many wars because we elect leaders who are ex military men who think a
war is the solution to all our problems? One thing is for sure McCain is a
guy who believes that war is a great tool for problem solving. So if we
elect him are we more likely to have more wars?

Hawke

Good question, but I don't think so. The countries that get into a lot of
wars are the countries that have overwhelming power and an inherited sense
of responsibility, either for empires or for allies, and whether that sense
of responsibility is sensible and justified or not.

The trouble with it is that it encourages more militarism than good sense
would dictate. Once a country gets into that mode, it's hard to stop. The
Ottoman Empire had it in its region of the world; the ancient Romans did;
the Spaniards did at one time in their history; and, of course, the Brits
handed it off to us.

There were some interesting editorials in the Times of London about how the
US was getting a bad rap; that, in their opinion, of *course* the world's
only superpower has to intervene in places like the former Yugoslavia, and
with the ambitions of the former Soviet Union, and so on. That's a
legitimate point of view, and no surprise coming from conservative Brits.
But it's wrong for our time, if it was ever right. If there's going to be
policing actions around the world -- and there probably are, regardless of
what we might desire -- the only legitimate way to accomplish them today is
with a large coalition of democratic states.

I think McCain has a fairly good sense of this, and is unlikely to be a
unilateralist. But it's Obama who has it built into his being. He's a man
suited for an emerging world order and is more likely to make a success of
it. I think it's a generational thing.

--
Ed Huntress

I also just happened to catch a few minutes of Michael Moore's movie
Bowling
for Columbine. The part I saw showed some Canadians that were being
asked
about the US. The gist of what they said was that the US was always
fighting
and that fighting was the way it tried to handle all it's problems. As
Canadians they didn't do things that way. Perhaps the reason why many
Americans want a strong leader or someone with military experience is
for
just that reason, they expect to be involved in wars and want someone in
charge who is good at warring. As we know, the more wars a country takes
part in the less use it has for democratic principles. Lots of wars
leads
to
authoritarian leadership. So it's a chicken or egg thing. Do we have so
many
wars because that is just how we try to solve all our problems or do we
have
so many wars because we elect leaders who are ex military men who think
a
war is the solution to all our problems? One thing is for sure McCain is
a
guy who believes that war is a great tool for problem solving. So if we
elect him are we more likely to have more wars?

Hawke

Good question, but I don't think so. The countries that get into a lot of
wars are the countries that have overwhelming power and an inherited sense
of responsibility, either for empires or for allies, and whether that
sense
of responsibility is sensible and justified or not.

The trouble with it is that it encourages more militarism than good sense
would dictate. Once a country gets into that mode, it's hard to stop. The
Ottoman Empire had it in its region of the world; the ancient Romans did;
the Spaniards did at one time in their history; and, of course, the Brits
handed it off to us.

There were some interesting editorials in the Times of London about how
the
US was getting a bad rap; that, in their opinion, of *course* the world's
only superpower has to intervene in places like the former Yugoslavia, and
with the ambitions of the former Soviet Union, and so on. That's a
legitimate point of view, and no surprise coming from conservative Brits.
But it's wrong for our time, if it was ever right. If there's going to be
policing actions around the world -- and there probably are, regardless of
what we might desire -- the only legitimate way to accomplish them today
is
with a large coalition of democratic states.

I think McCain has a fairly good sense of this, and is unlikely to be a
unilateralist. But it's Obama who has it built into his being. He's a man
suited for an emerging world order and is more likely to make a success of
it. I think it's a generational thing.

--
Ed Huntress


Funny thing about people is that a lot of the time you never know what they
are really like until they get power. I remember a line from Abagail Adams
in a letter to her husband where she said something to the effect that all
men would be tyrants if they could. Sometimes even the most mild mannered
individual turns into a maniac when given unlimited power. My take is that
McCain is not someone I would want to give it to. He's too much of a hot
head, even now at 71. The one thing I have gotten from what I have seen of
Obama is that he is cool and calculating, definitely not the kind to go off
half cocked off like I believe McCain would be likely to do. But if you saw
Obama's speech tonight I have to agree with him that after eight years of
republican control of the government giving them another four is lunacy.
Obama may be lacking in some things needed to be a good president but I'm
more than ready to take a chance on him. I seriously doubt he would make a
bigger mess of things than we have to deal with now. McCain I just know far
too well. I don't dislike him personally but he's completely the wrong guy
at the wrong time for this job. Of course, that may just well mean the
public will go ahead and elect him anyway. Look at what they did with Bush.
Could they have made a worse mistake?

Hawke

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:14:11 -0400, Wes wrote:

Tim Wescott wrote:

Don't bother with Gunner when he's being political. He thinks whatever
he's told to think, and doesn't bother with critical thinking. "Truth"
in a political discussion is "a sound Gunner makes that makes you vote
the way Gunner wants".

Coming from a pregrammed Useful Idiot (look up the term if you are not
familar with it Tim....) the irony is exquisite.



Tim, don't want to start a fight but if you have listened to the Democratic Convention and
can think critically which I am sure you can. You would notice a whole bunch of red meat,
emotionally targeted class envy bravo sierra being spewed by various politico's.

I loved the one about how the oil companies profits were larger than Microsoft. I have a
feeling the capitalization of the oil companies is a bit larger than Microsoft. Just
throw out a statement with no data for comparison aimed at people that have no clue that
Mickeysoft ass rapes them worse on product than the oil company. The only thing the
clueless know is gas is expensive. Answer this question, if oil companies were non-profit
what would the price of gas be today? Can someone tell me? That is a serious as a heart
attack question. Same for Office and XP Pro and Vista.

Bill Gates has a 7-10% profit margin? The oil companies do.


I'll be glad when this election is over. I wish Hillary had won the democratic
nomination, I have faith that liberal as she is, she wouldn't go totally nuts. Obama, oh,
I think he is going to make Carter look like he had it together.

So, I hope my last choice on the republican side, John Mc Cain wins. Wow what a choice
this cycle. An honorable man but a man that I have serious worries about his 'maverick'
tendencies.


Wes



"Confiscating wealth from those who have earned it, inherited it,
or got lucky is never going to help 'the poor.' Poverty isn't
caused by some people having more money than others, just as obesity
isn't caused by McDonald's serving super-sized orders of French fries
Poverty, like obesity, is caused by the life choices that dictate
results." - John Tucci,

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:49:37 -0400, Wes wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

I wonder if Leo and his brothers and sisters on the far left, have
ever read Unintended Consequences, by John Ross?

Evidently not.

They really should.


An absolutely fantastic book. I keep that one on the main book shelf next to Ayn Rand's
Atlas Shrugged.

Wes


In some respects, its a morality play..in others..its a strong warning
to any tyrant.

Too bad the Left (and unfortunately far too many on the Right) are
blind to both.

Gunner

"Confiscating wealth from those who have earned it, inherited it,
or got lucky is never going to help 'the poor.' Poverty isn't
caused by some people having more money than others, just as obesity
isn't caused by McDonald's serving super-sized orders of French fries
Poverty, like obesity, is caused by the life choices that dictate
results." - John Tucci,

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:06:29 -0500, cavelamb himself
wrote:

Is it really a lie if you believe it heart and soul?


If you think that Gunner believes half the things he says, then you believe
he's a psychotic moron. He's not psychotic, and he's not a moron.

--
Ed Huntress



I'm not so sure it's that simple, Ed.
Psychology being what it is...

People seem to believe a lot of strange stuff these days.
Some people seem to feel very threatened when things change on them.

Like, for instance, a black man running for President of the United States?

If one's belief system doesn't allow for that to happen, is convinced
that such a possibility must be stopped at any price, then is it lying?

I'd agree that Gunner is no moron.

But the psychotic part?

Based on what we've seen here?

WYSIWYG...


Son...Id not pass the tests for CCW every two years if I were a
nutbar.


Nor would there be any surviving Liberal politicians in California.

Chuckle...

Gunner

"Confiscating wealth from those who have earned it, inherited it,
or got lucky is never going to help 'the poor.' Poverty isn't
caused by some people having more money than others, just as obesity
isn't caused by McDonald's serving super-sized orders of French fries
Poverty, like obesity, is caused by the life choices that dictate
results." - John Tucci,

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:42:07 -0500, cavelamb himself
wrote:

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

Ed Huntress wrote:


Nothing.
You lie as easily as you breath and your life reflects that central
truth.
It's that simple.




I'm curious, though.

Is it really a lie if you believe it heart and soul?


If you think that Gunner believes half the things he says, then you
believe he's a psychotic moron. He's not psychotic, and he's not a moron.

--
Ed Huntress

I'm not so sure it's that simple, Ed.
Psychology being what it is...

People seem to believe a lot of strange stuff these days.
Some people seem to feel very threatened when things change on them.

Like, for instance, a black man running for President of the United
States?

If one's belief system doesn't allow for that to happen, is convinced
that such a possibility must be stopped at any price, then is it lying?

I'd agree that Gunner is no moron.

But the psychotic part?

Based on what we've seen here?

WYSIWYG...


Gunner wears his political personna like you would wear a lead vest when
you're getting your knees X-rayed. It's a schtick, one in which he's heavily
invested. The nastiest part of it is that he lets himself demean and
dehumanize people who don't agree with him.

Just using pages 11-134 in the Democrat Playbook. If it works for
them...

So, he's not psychotic. The degree of extremism one projects like that is a
reasonable measure of frustration and insecurity in varying mixtures. But he
can be an obnoxious twit.

--
Ed Huntress




Fair 'nuff...


G


"Confiscating wealth from those who have earned it, inherited it,
or got lucky is never going to help 'the poor.' Poverty isn't
caused by some people having more money than others, just as obesity
isn't caused by McDonald's serving super-sized orders of French fries
Poverty, like obesity, is caused by the life choices that dictate
results." - John Tucci,

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:35:54 -0700, "John Kunkel"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:14:21 -0700, "John Kunkel"
wrote:


Mindless robots see "forward this to as many people as you can" at the
bottom of an e-mail and do as instructed without any thought to accuracy,
as
long as it fits their preconceived ideas.


Then that explains all the hate Bush forwards we see here , and in my
various email boxes from the Droids on the Left?

A mindless robot is a mindless robot, regardless of political persuasion.
One does not need fictitious quotes from a book to make Dubya look like a
lying scoundrel; it comes natural to him.


Bet you give them a pass though...after all...they fit your
preconceived ideas.

Your ASSumptions are as erroneous as your "forwards".



Your ASSumption is noted.


"Confiscating wealth from those who have earned it, inherited it,
or got lucky is never going to help 'the poor.' Poverty isn't
caused by some people having more money than others, just as obesity
isn't caused by McDonald's serving super-sized orders of French fries
Poverty, like obesity, is caused by the life choices that dictate
results." - John Tucci,

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:06:29 -0500, cavelamb himself
wrote:


Is it really a lie if you believe it heart and soul?


If you think that Gunner believes half the things he says, then you believe
he's a psychotic moron. He's not psychotic, and he's not a moron.

--
Ed Huntress



I'm not so sure it's that simple, Ed.
Psychology being what it is...

People seem to believe a lot of strange stuff these days.
Some people seem to feel very threatened when things change on them.

Like, for instance, a black man running for President of the United States?

If one's belief system doesn't allow for that to happen, is convinced
that such a possibility must be stopped at any price, then is it lying?

I'd agree that Gunner is no moron.

But the psychotic part?

Based on what we've seen here?

WYSIWYG...



Son...Id not pass the tests for CCW every two years if I were a
nutbar.

I dunno about that, "old boy",
The CCW permit doesn't require a psyc evaluation.

And I know a few who are pretty extreem, but still have a ccw.



Nor would there be any surviving Liberal politicians in California.

Chuckle...



g



Gunner

"Confiscating wealth from those who have earned it, inherited it,
or got lucky is never going to help 'the poor.' Poverty isn't
caused by some people having more money than others, just as obesity
isn't caused by McDonald's serving super-sized orders of French fries
Poverty, like obesity, is caused by the life choices that dictate
results." - John Tucci,


--

Richard

(remove the X to email)