HeyBub wrote:

I'm with you. If some news reports of the pirates ages are correct, Obama
should get all the credit for killing the children.

Not saying anything was done wrong, but seems to me if you can hook up a
towline to the boat, you should have been able to do something other
than blow the kids heads off. I wondered from the beginning why they
couldn't just blow some holes in the boat. The boat was already dead in
the water so these punks had little negotiating power. Sink the boat and
4 punks swimming 30 miles from shore seems like a weak bargaining
position for the kids... Of course, if I were the pilot, I'd go for the
head explosions, particularly after the fact.

On that note, has anyone seen interviews of the pilot to get his in
depth thoughts? I don't watch left wing media much, so I could have
missed him...

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

J. Clarke wrote:

What happened to all those guys from Blackwater? Arene't a lot of
them unemployed these days? How much could it cost to put a few of
them on a merchant ship, with armament of their choice?

You mean set a pirate to catch a pirate?

You mean if you defend yourself from attack, you become an attacker?

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

Stuart wrote:
In article ,
Morris Dovey wrote:

It struck me some time ago that anyone with a healthy family and a full
belly was unlikely to pick up a gun or strap on a suicide vest.

Unless motivated by religious extremism -|

Seems the most popular reason to pick up a gun is socialism. Think of
the National Socialist Party of Germany (Nazi's) or Stalin, or Mao. The
second most popular reason to pick up a gun is to fight the socialists
trying to kill everyone. I was born just after WWII, but no one in my
circle of family or friends that picked up a weapon to fight Hitlers
socialist party were very hungry. Come to think of it, no one I know
that are picking up guns to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan are very hungry
either.

Come to think of it some more, and in the US during the depression, when
people were a bit hungry, violent crime was nothing like it is today,
after the War on Poverty put a chicken in every pot....

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:18:52 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:

HeyBub wrote:

I'm with you. If some news reports of the pirates ages are correct, Obama
should get all the credit for killing the children.

Not saying anything was done wrong, but seems to me if you can hook up a
towline to the boat, you should have been able to do something other
than blow the kids heads off. I wondered from the beginning why they
couldn't just blow some holes in the boat. The boat was already dead in
the water so these punks had little negotiating power. Sink the boat and
4 punks swimming 30 miles from shore seems like a weak bargaining
position for the kids... Of course, if I were the pilot, I'd go for the
head explosions, particularly after the fact.

On that note, has anyone seen interviews of the pilot to get his in
depth thoughts? I don't watch left wing media much, so I could have
missed him...

Just MHO, but if I was the hostage, I'd be praying for those snipers to get it
done SOON..
I've been shot at and it ain't a lot of fun..
A 10 year old with an AK on full auto has got a pretty good chance of hitting a
swimmer from a few yards away..
Assuming a banana clip, he'd have 30 tries..


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

DGDevin wrote:

Rubbish. I accept that the media as a whole leans liberal.

Not difficult to accept! Well, Bush is a liberal, the media is more
socialist or, Obama-like.

We haven't heard about WMDs in Iraq because there were
none to be found, not because the media didn't tell us about it.

I think there were a list of reasons, 9 perhaps, that we decided to go
into Iraq. The left wing UN, and left wing US congress approved. The
potential for WMD's was just one of the reasons. The media made certain
to beat the WMD thing to death and insure it made Bush look bad, even
though about everyone on earth thought IRAQ had WMD's, and had little
problem with the other bunch of reasons for going into Iraq.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

Morris Dovey wrote:
Tom Veatch wrote

Saw one news blurb that almost apologetically mentioned that pirates
were killed in the rescue. My reaction was "Who gives a royal ****
that they were killed."

Probably neither you nor I - but their families might...

I'm far more worried about torturing terrorists with naked pictures of
themselves and other swine than blowing the heads off a couple of
"pirates".

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

evodawg wrote:

Good that they kept one alive. Now all they need is Jack Bauer to extract
some info out of him. Oh I forgot Obama's words "we don't torture"..
Shucks!!!

Hey, I'm willing to send them a naked picture of ME if they are willing
to show it to the *******!

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

Robatoy wrote:

WTF is next? Our friends the Saudis allow marriage to an 8-year old.
Why wouldn't somebody from over there arm a 9-year old to " get
himself a few of those capitalist pigs"?
Just when you think mankind couldn't sink any lower....guess what?

Yeah, no more "capitalist pigs" just us socialist pigs...

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

Jack Stein wrote:
Stuart wrote:
In article ,
Morris Dovey wrote:

It struck me some time ago that anyone with a healthy family and a
full belly was unlikely to pick up a gun or strap on a suicide vest.

Unless motivated by religious extremism -|

Seems the most popular reason to pick up a gun is socialism. Think of
the National Socialist Party of Germany (Nazi's) or Stalin, or Mao. The
second most popular reason to pick up a gun is to fight the socialists
trying to kill everyone. I was born just after WWII, but no one in my
circle of family or friends that picked up a weapon to fight Hitlers
socialist party were very hungry. Come to think of it, no one I know
that are picking up guns to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan are very hungry
either.

I won't argue with your observations of those within your family circle,
but will encourage you to consider the conditions that led to the those
three political forces acquiring their political power.

Come to think of it some more, and in the US during the depression, when
people were a bit hungry, violent crime was nothing like it is today,
after the War on Poverty put a chicken in every pot....

An interesting observation. It might be even more interesting to
discover the social conditions that have produced today's level of
violence. It's also been interesting to contemplate the underpinnings of
the current level of ammunition sales - to the point that some
manufacturers have gone to round-the-clock production and still can't
meet demand. It leads one to wonder if the problem is with the chicken
or the pot - or something else.

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

HeyBub wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
And the $400 billion or so of the trust funds that are counted as
revenue and spent every year and replaced with an IOU which isn't
counted as an expenditure.

Interesting that the graph shows a surplus in 2000 and 2001, but the
national debt has increased each and every year since 1960.

Rounding error.

Whats a few trillion here and there?

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Charlie Self" wrote:

Bush is a swaggering loudmouth who knows that he isn't going to have
to pay the bill, be it economic or physical.

So true.

Obama is a "community organizer" so I reckon he will be paying the bills...

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

HeyBub wrote:

As for "paying the bill," I'll remind you that the deficit under Obama's
first year is larger than the deficits of all the Bush years.

Combined.

But... Obama is a "Community Organizer" so he WILL feel your pain...

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

mac davis wrote:

Just MHO, but if I was the hostage, I'd be praying for those snipers to get it
done SOON..

Me too.

I've been shot at and it ain't a lot of fun..
A 10 year old with an AK on full auto has got a pretty good chance of hitting a
swimmer from a few yards away..

The guy had already jumped in the water to swim away, and they didn't
shoot him. My thought would be if the boat sank, they wouldn't shoot
him either. Once they were in the water, 30 miles from shore, they
probably would be looking more for rescue than looking to shoot someone.
Didn't we already "rescue" one of the sick pirates?

Assuming a banana clip, he'd have 30 tries..

but nowhere to go... Still, I agree, kill'em now would be my thoughts
as a hostage... I wonder what he was thinking...

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

Jack Stein wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

I'm with you. If some news reports of the pirates ages are correct,
Obama should get all the credit for killing the children.

Not saying anything was done wrong, but seems to me if you can hook up a
towline to the boat, you should have been able to do something other
than blow the kids heads off. I wondered from the beginning why they
couldn't just blow some holes in the boat. The boat was already dead in
the water so these punks had little negotiating power. Sink the boat and
4 punks swimming 30 miles from shore seems like a weak bargaining
position for the kids... Of course, if I were the pilot, I'd go for the
head explosions, particularly after the fact.

On that note, has anyone seen interviews of the pilot to get his in
depth thoughts? I don't watch left wing media much, so I could have
missed him...

Good idea except for one thing. The damn things are unsinkable.....

Jack Stein wrote:
mac davis wrote:

Just MHO, but if I was the hostage, I'd be praying for those snipers
to get it
done SOON..

Me too.

I've been shot at and it ain't a lot of fun..
A 10 year old with an AK on full auto has got a pretty good chance of
hitting a
swimmer from a few yards away..

The guy had already jumped in the water to swim away, and they didn't
shoot him. My thought would be if the boat sank, they wouldn't shoot
him either. Once they were in the water, 30 miles from shore, they
probably would be looking more for rescue than looking to shoot someone.
Didn't we already "rescue" one of the sick pirates?

Assuming a banana clip, he'd have 30 tries..

but nowhere to go... Still, I agree, kill'em now would be my thoughts
as a hostage... I wonder what he was thinking...

I believe that was the second time that he jumped overboard but the
snipers were not in position and the pirates forced him back into their
boat. What happened to the armed pirates was no different than what
would have happened to them if they were holding hostages in the US.

David G. Nagel wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

I'm with you. If some news reports of the pirates ages are correct,
Obama should get all the credit for killing the children.

Not saying anything was done wrong, but seems to me if you can hook up
a towline to the boat, you should have been able to do something other
than blow the kids heads off. I wondered from the beginning why they
couldn't just blow some holes in the boat. The boat was already dead
in the water so these punks had little negotiating power. Sink the
boat and 4 punks swimming 30 miles from shore seems like a weak
bargaining position for the kids... Of course, if I were the pilot,
I'd go for the head explosions, particularly after the fact.

On that note, has anyone seen interviews of the pilot to get his in
depth thoughts? I don't watch left wing media much, so I could have
missed him...

Good idea except for one thing. The damn things are unsinkable.....


Just like the Titanic:-)

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

Charlie Self wrote:

Thus making Bush more of a bum...? Or less of one?

Bush is a swaggering loudmouth who knows that he isn't going to have
to pay the bill, be it economic or physical.

There were deficits under Bush, true. In his last year it was about $400
billion. A lot, but a robust economy could overcome that. Obama's 1st year
deficit is projected at $1.85 trillion (CBO).

In fact the 1st year Obama deficit alone is larger than the deficits for all
the Bush years combined. Obama's second year's deficit is projected at $1.4
trillion. The deficit drops a bit faster after that, the third year's
deficit a more modest $1 trillion.

The president has taken note of this, however. According to the Washington
post just today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041902009.html

The president has ordered his departments to come up with $100 million in
cuts. Considering the entire budget is $3.5 trillion, the cuts the president
proposes are equivalent to a family with a $75,000 income giving up two cups
of coffee. Or a family making $250,000 giving up one paperback book. Per
year.

"Morris Dovey" wrote:

An interesting observation. It might be even more interesting to
discover the social conditions that have produced today's level of
violence.

IMHO, it is parents who abdicate their parental responsibilities to
whatever will fill the time in the lives of these young people, rather
than doing the hard work of being a parent.

Lew

HeyBub wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
Thus making Bush more of a bum...? Or less of one?
Bush is a swaggering loudmouth who knows that he isn't going to have
to pay the bill, be it economic or physical.

There were deficits under Bush, true. In his last year it was about $400
billion. A lot, but a robust economy could overcome that. Obama's 1st year
deficit is projected at $1.85 trillion (CBO).

In fact the 1st year Obama deficit alone is larger than the deficits for all
the Bush years combined. Obama's second year's deficit is projected at $1.4
trillion. The deficit drops a bit faster after that, the third year's
deficit a more modest $1 trillion.

The president has taken note of this, however. According to the Washington
post just today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041902009.html

The president has ordered his departments to come up with $100 million in
cuts. Considering the entire budget is $3.5 trillion, the cuts the president
proposes are equivalent to a family with a $75,000 income giving up two cups
of coffee. Or a family making $250,000 giving up one paperback book. Per
year.


$3.5 trillion is almost $10,000 for every person in the US or $40,000
for a family of four. Since the median household income is about
$50,000 a year...

HeyBub wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
Thus making Bush more of a bum...? Or less of one?
Bush is a swaggering loudmouth who knows that he isn't going to have
to pay the bill, be it economic or physical.

There were deficits under Bush, true. In his last year it was about $400
billion. A lot, but a robust economy could overcome that. Obama's 1st year
deficit is projected at $1.85 trillion (CBO).

In fact the 1st year Obama deficit alone is larger than the deficits for all
the Bush years combined. Obama's second year's deficit is projected at $1.4
trillion. The deficit drops a bit faster after that, the third year's
deficit a more modest $1 trillion.

The president has taken note of this, however. According to the Washington
post just today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041902009.html

The president has ordered his departments to come up with $100 million in
cuts. Considering the entire budget is $3.5 trillion, the cuts the president
proposes are equivalent to a family with a $75,000 income giving up two cups
of coffee. Or a family making $250,000 giving up one paperback book. Per
year.


There is a report circulating in the newspages that at the end of the
first half obama's deficit is over 900 billion dollars, principally
caused by the democrat passed stimulus bill.

Lew Hodgett wrote:


"Morris Dovey" wrote:

An interesting observation. It might be even more interesting to
discover the social conditions that have produced today's level of
violence.

IMHO, it is parents who abdicate their parental responsibilities to
whatever will fill the time in the lives of these young people, rather
than doing the hard work of being a parent.

Lew

Studies that take out inner-city gang violence indicate that violence is
no worse than it has ever been. So the question to be asking is why
inner-city violence has increased in the past decades. One question to aid
that inquiry is to ask what locations have been most subjected to removing
individual responsibility and substituting dependency upon government
handouts. When one is being taken care of by others, it reduces motivation
and self-respect. When you look at what the war on poverty has done to
inner city families, it is both tragic and criminal.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Jack Stein wrote:
David G. Nagel wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

I'm with you. If some news reports of the pirates ages are correct,
Obama should get all the credit for killing the children.

Not saying anything was done wrong, but seems to me if you can hook
up a towline to the boat, you should have been able to do something
other than blow the kids heads off. I wondered from the beginning
why they couldn't just blow some holes in the boat. The boat was
already dead in the water so these punks had little negotiating
power. Sink the boat and 4 punks swimming 30 miles from shore seems
like a weak bargaining position for the kids... Of course, if I were
the pilot, I'd go for the head explosions, particularly after the fact.

On that note, has anyone seen interviews of the pilot to get his in
depth thoughts? I don't watch left wing media much, so I could have
missed him...

Good idea except for one thing. The damn things are unsinkable.....


Just like the Titanic:-)

No, the RMS Titanic sideswiped an iceberg and ripped the hull open.
There is absolutely no flotation material in the ship. A modern life
boat hull is composed of flotation material. Even if holed as bad as
Captain Smith's command the life boat won't sink. If broken into small
pieces you can use the chunks as flotation devices.

Keel haul him. That is the old way. Effective.

Martin

Jack Stein wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
Tom Veatch wrote

Saw one news blurb that almost apologetically mentioned that pirates
were killed in the rescue. My reaction was "Who gives a royal ****
that they were killed."

Probably neither you nor I - but their families might...

I'm far more worried about torturing terrorists with naked pictures of
themselves and other swine than blowing the heads off a couple of
"pirates".

HeyBub wrote:

The president has taken note of this, however. According to the Washington
post just today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041902009.html

The president has ordered his departments to come up with $100 million in
cuts. Considering the entire budget is $3.5 trillion, the cuts the president
proposes are equivalent to a family with a $75,000 income giving up two cups
of coffee. Or a family making $250,000 giving up one paperback book. Per
year.

No pain, no gain...

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

Doug Winterburn wrote:

$3.5 trillion is almost $10,000 for every person in the US or $40,000
for a family of four. Since the median household income is about
$50,000 a year...

No one should need more than 64K memory, or $10 grand a year to live on.
I think Obama should tax any income over 10 grand at 90%... Perhaps
then his rich bitch wife could no longer afford those $400 lunches I
heard about on the internet...

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

Keith Nuttle wrote:

There is a report circulating in the newspages that at the end of the
first half obama's deficit is over 900 billion dollars, principally
caused by the democrat passed stimulus bill.

What better way to stimulate the economy than to put it into bankruptcy?

Perhaps the fruit cakes in California can help us some...

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com