"Al Spohn" wrote in message
news:MPG.1bb8d7cc493fd7a49896f7@mayonews...

I'd be curious as to what the normal rate of absenteeism is in
Washington, particularly for those running for the Presidency. His
behavior in this regard only marks him as a politician in my book, and
doesn't rule him out as a viable candidate for the presidency.


I see you're setting the bar pretty high there for electing our next
president...leader of the free world. With that attitude it is no wonder we
are getting what we deserve in politicians.


As would I, but I hope you'll hold Bush to the same standard regarding
his vacation time.


You keep saying it is vacation, but to anyone with an objective viewpoint,
it is not. Why do you keep calling it vacation? It just isn't.

dwhite

"Al Spohn" wrote in message
news:MPG.1bb8d7cc493fd7a49896f7@mayonews...

I'd be curious as to what the normal rate of absenteeism is in
Washington, particularly for those running for the Presidency. His
behavior in this regard only marks him as a politician in my book, and
doesn't rule him out as a viable candidate for the presidency.


I see you're setting the bar pretty high there for electing our next
president...leader of the free world. With that attitude it is no wonder we
are getting what we deserve in politicians.


As would I, but I hope you'll hold Bush to the same standard regarding
his vacation time.


You keep saying it is vacation, but to anyone with an objective viewpoint,
it is not. Why do you keep calling it vacation? It just isn't.

dwhite

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
Dave Hinz wrote in message
...

And whose fault is that? Kerry voted to approve the war too, remember?
He also said, a week or two ago, that even knowing what he knows now,
he'd _still_ vote to approve going to war. How do you reconcile that
with yourself, I wonder?

No, Kerry did not vote to approve the war. The Congress did not
declare war. That's like saying that a law thar permits police
officers to carry guns is approval of every shooting by a police
officer.


No offense intended, but the quote above and the rest of this post is a
complete load of crap, sorry, and is exactly the kind of obfuscation that is
going to lose the election for Kerry. Kerry and practically everybody else
gave the president the authority to act. The rest is splitting hairs and
political maneuvering. Anybody who is really watching can see that Kerry's
position on the war is complely, exclusively driven by the polls.

dwhite

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
Dave Hinz wrote in message
...

And whose fault is that? Kerry voted to approve the war too, remember?
He also said, a week or two ago, that even knowing what he knows now,
he'd _still_ vote to approve going to war. How do you reconcile that
with yourself, I wonder?

No, Kerry did not vote to approve the war. The Congress did not
declare war. That's like saying that a law thar permits police
officers to carry guns is approval of every shooting by a police
officer.


No offense intended, but the quote above and the rest of this post is a
complete load of crap, sorry, and is exactly the kind of obfuscation that is
going to lose the election for Kerry. Kerry and practically everybody else
gave the president the authority to act. The rest is splitting hairs and
political maneuvering. Anybody who is really watching can see that Kerry's
position on the war is complely, exclusively driven by the polls.

dwhite

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...

More to the point voters might prefer a liar over an honest candidate
based on the policies they espouse. I say might, because it may
never come to pass that voters have a choice between an honest and
a dishonest candidate.


It is irresponsible to call someone a liar when there are absolutely NO
FACTS that substantiate that claim. Show me where it was concluded that
Bush lied about anything. If you are talking about the war, then you have
to say everyone in congress including Kerry (intelligence cmte, remember?)
and lots of other people around the world were "lying."

dwhite

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...

More to the point voters might prefer a liar over an honest candidate
based on the policies they espouse. I say might, because it may
never come to pass that voters have a choice between an honest and
a dishonest candidate.


It is irresponsible to call someone a liar when there are absolutely NO
FACTS that substantiate that claim. Show me where it was concluded that
Bush lied about anything. If you are talking about the war, then you have
to say everyone in congress including Kerry (intelligence cmte, remember?)
and lots of other people around the world were "lying."

dwhite

"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...

"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Dan White" wrote:

Do you really think Kennedy would be a democrat today? I'm
not so sure he would be sitting up there with Al Gore, Tom Daschle and
Michael Moore.

That is really an interesting observation... I believe in some aspects
he would surely be in the Democrat camp - others, not. Honestly, I am
not that familiar with Kennedy's policies and beliefs.

Have you examined how many recent past Republican prez's would approve
of today's admin and party? Eisenhower with his parting words warning of
the military industrial compex? Nixon had is foibles, but he certainly
believed in strengthening foreign relations. Do you think Reagan would
be cheering the decisions of today? (I believe we can surmise that
George H. is not in full agreement on many of the aspects of the way the
Middle East has been handled from his book on his own experiences
there.)

I believe the Democrat Party has not changed as much as the Republican
Party has in the last 15 years. I'd hazzard a guess that the Repubs are
far less recognizeable to their predecessors than the Dems are to
theirs.

I'll agree with that. I have never voted for a Democrat. Not that I
wouldn't, just never saw one that was worth voting for. The republicans
are
starting to get unrecognizable though. This president is a serious
disappointment.


I actually agree with you on this one to a degree, but almost surely for
completely different reasons. Thank you for starting to bottom post.

dwhite

"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...

"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Dan White" wrote:

Do you really think Kennedy would be a democrat today? I'm
not so sure he would be sitting up there with Al Gore, Tom Daschle and
Michael Moore.

That is really an interesting observation... I believe in some aspects
he would surely be in the Democrat camp - others, not. Honestly, I am
not that familiar with Kennedy's policies and beliefs.

Have you examined how many recent past Republican prez's would approve
of today's admin and party? Eisenhower with his parting words warning of
the military industrial compex? Nixon had is foibles, but he certainly
believed in strengthening foreign relations. Do you think Reagan would
be cheering the decisions of today? (I believe we can surmise that
George H. is not in full agreement on many of the aspects of the way the
Middle East has been handled from his book on his own experiences
there.)

I believe the Democrat Party has not changed as much as the Republican
Party has in the last 15 years. I'd hazzard a guess that the Repubs are
far less recognizeable to their predecessors than the Dems are to
theirs.

I'll agree with that. I have never voted for a Democrat. Not that I
wouldn't, just never saw one that was worth voting for. The republicans
are
starting to get unrecognizable though. This president is a serious
disappointment.


I actually agree with you on this one to a degree, but almost surely for
completely different reasons. Thank you for starting to bottom post.

dwhite

Is was an anomaly. Don't get used to it.

"Dan White" wrote in message news:WiM3d.1750 I
actually agree with you on this one to a degree, but almost surely for
completely different reasons. Thank you for starting to bottom post.

dwhite

Is was an anomaly. Don't get used to it.

"Dan White" wrote in message news:WiM3d.1750 I
actually agree with you on this one to a degree, but almost surely for
completely different reasons. Thank you for starting to bottom post.

dwhite

Dan White wrote:
: "Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
: om...
:
: More to the point voters might prefer a liar over an honest candidate
: based on the policies they espouse. I say might, because it may
: never come to pass that voters have a choice between an honest and
: a dishonest candidate.
:

: It is irresponsible to call someone a liar when there are absolutely NO
: FACTS that substantiate that claim. Show me where it was concluded that
: Bush lied about anything.

His TANG service.

The nigerian yellowcake thing.

Links betwen Hussein and al-Quaeda ....

-- Andy Barss

Dan White wrote:
: "Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
: om...
:
: More to the point voters might prefer a liar over an honest candidate
: based on the policies they espouse. I say might, because it may
: never come to pass that voters have a choice between an honest and
: a dishonest candidate.
:

: It is irresponsible to call someone a liar when there are absolutely NO
: FACTS that substantiate that claim. Show me where it was concluded that
: Bush lied about anything.

His TANG service.

The nigerian yellowcake thing.

Links betwen Hussein and al-Quaeda ....

-- Andy Barss

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...
Dan White wrote:
: "Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
: om...
:
: More to the point voters might prefer a liar over an honest candidate
: based on the policies they espouse. I say might, because it may
: never come to pass that voters have a choice between an honest and
: a dishonest candidate.
:

: It is irresponsible to call someone a liar when there are absolutely NO
: FACTS that substantiate that claim. Show me where it was concluded that
: Bush lied about anything.

His TANG service.

Yeah, there's *so* much evidence that the Dems had to cook up some phony
papers to show it. And then Rather, the Dems' lapdog, just puts it right on
the air. Anyone who scoffed at the notion that the mainstream press (CBS in
particular) is liberal can just shut up now, I guess.

todd

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...
Dan White wrote:
: "Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
: om...
:
: More to the point voters might prefer a liar over an honest candidate
: based on the policies they espouse. I say might, because it may
: never come to pass that voters have a choice between an honest and
: a dishonest candidate.
:

: It is irresponsible to call someone a liar when there are absolutely NO
: FACTS that substantiate that claim. Show me where it was concluded that
: Bush lied about anything.

His TANG service.

Yeah, there's *so* much evidence that the Dems had to cook up some phony
papers to show it. And then Rather, the Dems' lapdog, just puts it right on
the air. Anyone who scoffed at the notion that the mainstream press (CBS in
particular) is liberal can just shut up now, I guess.

todd

Todd Fatheree wrote:
: : FACTS that substantiate that claim. Show me where it was concluded that
: : Bush lied about anything.
:
: His TANG service.

: Yeah, there's *so* much evidence that the Dems had to cook up some phony
: papers to show it.

I'm of the opinion that if these docs were forged, they originated in Karl
Rove's lair of deceit.

And aside from their originality, I'd like to see a detailed exmination
of the *content* of the memos.

-- Andy Barss

Todd Fatheree wrote:
: : FACTS that substantiate that claim. Show me where it was concluded that
: : Bush lied about anything.
:
: His TANG service.

: Yeah, there's *so* much evidence that the Dems had to cook up some phony
: papers to show it.

I'm of the opinion that if these docs were forged, they originated in Karl
Rove's lair of deceit.

And aside from their originality, I'd like to see a detailed exmination
of the *content* of the memos.

-- Andy Barss

Dan White wrote:

"Al Spohn" wrote in message
news:MPG.1bb8d7cc493fd7a49896f7@mayonews...

I'd be curious as to what the normal rate of absenteeism is in
Washington, particularly for those running for the Presidency. His
behavior in this regard only marks him as a politician in my book, and
doesn't rule him out as a viable candidate for the presidency.


I see you're setting the bar pretty high there for electing our next
president...leader of the free world. With that attitude it is no wonder
we are getting what we deserve in politicians.


As would I, but I hope you'll hold Bush to the same standard regarding
his vacation time.


You keep saying it is vacation, but to anyone with an objective viewpoint,
it is not. Why do you keep calling it vacation? It just isn't.

FWIW, I used to work for a company whose CEO spent half his time skiing in
Europe. And every time he came back he came back with millions of dollars
worth of new business. He died. The company died shortly after. So was
he working or vacationing? Or does it make a difference?

dwhite

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Dan White wrote:

"Al Spohn" wrote in message
news:MPG.1bb8d7cc493fd7a49896f7@mayonews...

I'd be curious as to what the normal rate of absenteeism is in
Washington, particularly for those running for the Presidency. His
behavior in this regard only marks him as a politician in my book, and
doesn't rule him out as a viable candidate for the presidency.


I see you're setting the bar pretty high there for electing our next
president...leader of the free world. With that attitude it is no wonder
we are getting what we deserve in politicians.


As would I, but I hope you'll hold Bush to the same standard regarding
his vacation time.


You keep saying it is vacation, but to anyone with an objective viewpoint,
it is not. Why do you keep calling it vacation? It just isn't.

FWIW, I used to work for a company whose CEO spent half his time skiing in
Europe. And every time he came back he came back with millions of dollars
worth of new business. He died. The company died shortly after. So was
he working or vacationing? Or does it make a difference?

dwhite

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article , Andrew Barss wrote:
Todd Fatheree wrote:
: : FACTS that substantiate that claim. Show me where it was concluded that
: : Bush lied about anything.
:
: His TANG service.

: Yeah, there's *so* much evidence that the Dems had to cook up some phony
: papers to show it.

I'm of the opinion that if these docs were forged, they originated in Karl
Rove's lair of deceit.

And aside from their originality, I'd like to see a detailed exmination
of the *content* of the memos.

Excuse me? They're *forgeries*.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article , Andrew Barss wrote:
Todd Fatheree wrote:
: : FACTS that substantiate that claim. Show me where it was concluded that
: : Bush lied about anything.
:
: His TANG service.

: Yeah, there's *so* much evidence that the Dems had to cook up some phony
: papers to show it.

I'm of the opinion that if these docs were forged, they originated in Karl
Rove's lair of deceit.

And aside from their originality, I'd like to see a detailed exmination
of the *content* of the memos.

Excuse me? They're *forgeries*.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message ...
Todd Fatheree wrote:
: : FACTS that substantiate that claim. Show me where it was concluded that
: : Bush lied about anything.
:
: His TANG service.

: Yeah, there's *so* much evidence that the Dems had to cook up some phony
: papers to show it.

I'm of the opinion that if these docs were forged, they originated in Karl
Rove's lair of deceit.


Talk about obfuscation! If the source was in any way remotely connected to Rove, the White House or RNC, you don't think that CBS
would have revealed that? Get real!


And aside from their originality, I'd like to see a detailed exmination
of the *content* of the memos.

-- Andy Barss

I must be missing something here. What logic is there to examining the content of a forged document. Find some authentic documents
first, then ask for an examination/explanation of the content.

So if I forge a document that states that John Kerry self-inflicted three superficial wounds to get out of service in Vietnam, we
should examine the content of the forged document? Right, I can just see it now.

--
Al Reid

How will I know when I get there...
If I don't know where I'm going?

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message ...
Todd Fatheree wrote:
: : FACTS that substantiate that claim. Show me where it was concluded that
: : Bush lied about anything.
:
: His TANG service.

: Yeah, there's *so* much evidence that the Dems had to cook up some phony
: papers to show it.

I'm of the opinion that if these docs were forged, they originated in Karl
Rove's lair of deceit.


Talk about obfuscation! If the source was in any way remotely connected to Rove, the White House or RNC, you don't think that CBS
would have revealed that? Get real!


And aside from their originality, I'd like to see a detailed exmination
of the *content* of the memos.

-- Andy Barss

I must be missing something here. What logic is there to examining the content of a forged document. Find some authentic documents
first, then ask for an examination/explanation of the content.

So if I forge a document that states that John Kerry self-inflicted three superficial wounds to get out of service in Vietnam, we
should examine the content of the forged document? Right, I can just see it now.

--
Al Reid

How will I know when I get there...
If I don't know where I'm going?

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...
Todd Fatheree wrote:
: : FACTS that substantiate that claim. Show me where it was concluded
that
: : Bush lied about anything.
:
: His TANG service.

: Yeah, there's *so* much evidence that the Dems had to cook up some phony
: papers to show it.

I'm of the opinion that if these docs were forged, they originated in Karl
Rove's lair of deceit.

Wow. You'll repeat any old dumbass statement that Terry McAuliffe blurts
out, won't you. Look, genius, Bill Burkett has already admitted to being
the source of the documents to CBS, though he says someone else was the
original source. So, unless you're a complete idiot and think that Burkett
is protecting Karl Rove, they obviously came from somewhere else.

And aside from their originality, I'd like to see a detailed exmination
of the *content* of the memos.

Yes, let's have a detailed examination of documents that practically
everyone believes are forgeries. Except Dan Rather. If the documents are
forged, he wants to "break" that story. Here's your detailed examination.
"Well, it appears that these documents were made up. *crumple* *crumple*
Into the circular file for two points."

-- Andy Barss

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...
Todd Fatheree wrote:
: : FACTS that substantiate that claim. Show me where it was concluded
that
: : Bush lied about anything.
:
: His TANG service.

: Yeah, there's *so* much evidence that the Dems had to cook up some phony
: papers to show it.

I'm of the opinion that if these docs were forged, they originated in Karl
Rove's lair of deceit.

Wow. You'll repeat any old dumbass statement that Terry McAuliffe blurts
out, won't you. Look, genius, Bill Burkett has already admitted to being
the source of the documents to CBS, though he says someone else was the
original source. So, unless you're a complete idiot and think that Burkett
is protecting Karl Rove, they obviously came from somewhere else.

And aside from their originality, I'd like to see a detailed exmination
of the *content* of the memos.

Yes, let's have a detailed examination of documents that practically
everyone believes are forgeries. Except Dan Rather. If the documents are
forged, he wants to "break" that story. Here's your detailed examination.
"Well, it appears that these documents were made up. *crumple* *crumple*
Into the circular file for two points."

-- Andy Barss

In article KlX3d.2980$Ec4.507@trndny04, wrote:

But I suppose "Build nuke plants and tell the Saudis to drink their damn
oil" makes me a dangerous reactionary or something.

Although it's a good first step, nuke plants alone won't do it. The most
important step in ending our dependence on Middle East oil is to find an
alternative to the internal combustion engine for powering our personal
transportation. It's an inherently inefficient technology that makes poor use
of the chemical energy in gasoline, wasting most of it as heat. Until that
happens -- which will take a *long* time, given that there are a couple
hundred million cars in the US -- we're stuck with buying oil from the
buggers.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article KlX3d.2980$Ec4.507@trndny04, wrote:

But I suppose "Build nuke plants and tell the Saudis to drink their damn
oil" makes me a dangerous reactionary or something.

Although it's a good first step, nuke plants alone won't do it. The most
important step in ending our dependence on Middle East oil is to find an
alternative to the internal combustion engine for powering our personal
transportation. It's an inherently inefficient technology that makes poor use
of the chemical energy in gasoline, wasting most of it as heat. Until that
happens -- which will take a *long* time, given that there are a couple
hundred million cars in the US -- we're stuck with buying oil from the
buggers.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:01:28 GMT, Doug Miller
wrote:
In article KlX3d.2980$Ec4.507@trndny04, wrote:

But I suppose "Build nuke plants and tell the Saudis to drink their damn
oil" makes me a dangerous reactionary or something.

Although it's a good first step, nuke plants alone won't do it. The most
important step in ending our dependence on Middle East oil is to find an
alternative to the internal combustion engine for powering our personal
transportation. It's an inherently inefficient technology that makes poor use
of the chemical energy in gasoline, wasting most of it as heat. Until that
happens -- which will take a *long* time, given that there are a couple
hundred million cars in the US -- we're stuck with buying oil from the
buggers.


Partially . . . I suspect it's a combination of inertia plus the
portability of gasoline. Fuel cells aren't "there" yet, and petroleum
remains cheap and abundant--it would need to be something like 10x more
expensive for its cost to affect things like ocean shipping.

My understanding is that the sticking point for vehicular use is cost
per distance. It only becomes cost effective for things like satalites
where there's no alternative but to be solar.

Though there are some encouraging developments: When was the last time
you saw a diesel-powered temporary road sign? Around here they've been
replaced 100% by solar powered LED models.

Still, if you remove all non-vehicle applications of petroleum, it would
be significant in terms of supply and demand.

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:01:28 GMT, Doug Miller
wrote:
In article KlX3d.2980$Ec4.507@trndny04, wrote:

But I suppose "Build nuke plants and tell the Saudis to drink their damn
oil" makes me a dangerous reactionary or something.

Although it's a good first step, nuke plants alone won't do it. The most
important step in ending our dependence on Middle East oil is to find an
alternative to the internal combustion engine for powering our personal
transportation. It's an inherently inefficient technology that makes poor use
of the chemical energy in gasoline, wasting most of it as heat. Until that
happens -- which will take a *long* time, given that there are a couple
hundred million cars in the US -- we're stuck with buying oil from the
buggers.


Partially . . . I suspect it's a combination of inertia plus the
portability of gasoline. Fuel cells aren't "there" yet, and petroleum
remains cheap and abundant--it would need to be something like 10x more
expensive for its cost to affect things like ocean shipping.

My understanding is that the sticking point for vehicular use is cost
per distance. It only becomes cost effective for things like satalites
where there's no alternative but to be solar.

Though there are some encouraging developments: When was the last time
you saw a diesel-powered temporary road sign? Around here they've been
replaced 100% by solar powered LED models.

Still, if you remove all non-vehicle applications of petroleum, it would
be significant in terms of supply and demand.

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message ...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...
Not a war. Try again.


To deny that the Vietnam war was a war defies reason.

--

FF
"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...
Simple fact.

war : A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between
nations, states, or parties.

Sounds to me like what happened in Vietnam. Or it isn't a war to you unless
some politicians somewhere say it is?


The Korean War is often, even 'officially' called a 'police action'.

That the Korean War was a police action does not change the fact that
it was a war.

Pennsylvania is a 'Commonwealth'. Someone in Pennsylvania tried to
convince me that the Peannsylvania was not a state because it was
a commonwealth. That the State of Pennsyulvania is a Commonwealth
does not mean it is not a state.

And so.
--

FF

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message ...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...
Not a war. Try again.


To deny that the Vietnam war was a war defies reason.

--

FF
"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...
Simple fact.

war : A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between
nations, states, or parties.

Sounds to me like what happened in Vietnam. Or it isn't a war to you unless
some politicians somewhere say it is?


The Korean War is often, even 'officially' called a 'police action'.

That the Korean War was a police action does not change the fact that
it was a war.

Pennsylvania is a 'Commonwealth'. Someone in Pennsylvania tried to
convince me that the Peannsylvania was not a state because it was
a commonwealth. That the State of Pennsyulvania is a Commonwealth
does not mean it is not a state.

And so.
--

FF

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:38:00 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss wrote:

I'm of the opinion that if these docs were forged, they originated in Karl
Rove's lair of deceit.

Translation: "Yeah, well, they're fake, but they're still true, waaaaah".

And aside from their originality, I'd like to see a detailed exmination
of the *content* of the memos.

I'd like Kerry to answer why he didn't attend 77.6% of the intelligence
committee meetings he was supposed to attend. How about things that
matter? Bush's questionable service record, Kerry's post-war disgraces
of the military - it's a wash. Pick another topic, you're not getting
anywhere with this one.

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:38:00 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss wrote:

I'm of the opinion that if these docs were forged, they originated in Karl
Rove's lair of deceit.

Translation: "Yeah, well, they're fake, but they're still true, waaaaah".

And aside from their originality, I'd like to see a detailed exmination
of the *content* of the memos.

I'd like Kerry to answer why he didn't attend 77.6% of the intelligence
committee meetings he was supposed to attend. How about things that
matter? Bush's questionable service record, Kerry's post-war disgraces
of the military - it's a wash. Pick another topic, you're not getting
anywhere with this one.

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:01:28 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article KlX3d.2980$Ec4.507@trndny04, wrote:

But I suppose "Build nuke plants and tell the Saudis to drink their damn
oil" makes me a dangerous reactionary or something.

Although it's a good first step, nuke plants alone won't do it. The most
important step in ending our dependence on Middle East oil is to find an
alternative to the internal combustion engine for powering our personal
transportation.

Eventually, maybe, yes. In the meantime, let's burn fuels that we can
produce here - domestic oil, or better yet, biofuels.

It's an inherently inefficient technology that makes poor use
of the chemical energy in gasoline, wasting most of it as heat. Until that
happens -- which will take a *long* time, given that there are a couple
hundred million cars in the US -- we're stuck with buying oil from the
buggers.

I'd rather give money to the USA'n farmers than to the arabs, anyone else?

Dave Hinz

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:01:28 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article KlX3d.2980$Ec4.507@trndny04, wrote:

But I suppose "Build nuke plants and tell the Saudis to drink their damn
oil" makes me a dangerous reactionary or something.

Although it's a good first step, nuke plants alone won't do it. The most
important step in ending our dependence on Middle East oil is to find an
alternative to the internal combustion engine for powering our personal
transportation.

Eventually, maybe, yes. In the meantime, let's burn fuels that we can
produce here - domestic oil, or better yet, biofuels.

It's an inherently inefficient technology that makes poor use
of the chemical energy in gasoline, wasting most of it as heat. Until that
happens -- which will take a *long* time, given that there are a couple
hundred million cars in the US -- we're stuck with buying oil from the
buggers.

I'd rather give money to the USA'n farmers than to the arabs, anyone else?

Dave Hinz

In article , Dave Hinz wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:01:28 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article KlX3d.2980$Ec4.507@trndny04, wrote:

But I suppose "Build nuke plants and tell the Saudis to drink their damn
oil" makes me a dangerous reactionary or something.

Although it's a good first step, nuke plants alone won't do it. The most
important step in ending our dependence on Middle East oil is to find an
alternative to the internal combustion engine for powering our personal
transportation.

Eventually, maybe, yes. In the meantime, let's burn fuels that we can
produce here - domestic oil, or better yet, biofuels.

Problem is that US demand is quite a bit higher than US production, even when
you factor in the biofuels. We *must* reduce demand -- our dependence on
Middle East petroleum jeopardizes our national security.

It's an inherently inefficient technology that makes poor use
of the chemical energy in gasoline, wasting most of it as heat. Until that
happens -- which will take a *long* time, given that there are a couple
hundred million cars in the US -- we're stuck with buying oil from the
buggers.

I'd rather give money to the USA'n farmers than to the arabs, anyone else?

Can't argue with you there. Not much, anyway. Trouble is, if we stop buying
oil from the Arabs, we're gonna run out pretty quickly -- which raises
*another* national security issue: the depletion of our own supplies. As long
as our demand remains as high as it is, we're actually better off buying oil
from the Middle East than consuming our own. If the oil is running out, better
_for_us_ that we use up the Arabs' oil, than use up ours. If we use ours up
first, before we've created technologies to replace the gasoline-fueled
internal combustion engine, then we *must* buy from the Arabs, and they will
be able to extort whatever they wish from us.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article , Dave Hinz wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:01:28 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article KlX3d.2980$Ec4.507@trndny04, wrote:

But I suppose "Build nuke plants and tell the Saudis to drink their damn
oil" makes me a dangerous reactionary or something.

Although it's a good first step, nuke plants alone won't do it. The most
important step in ending our dependence on Middle East oil is to find an
alternative to the internal combustion engine for powering our personal
transportation.

Eventually, maybe, yes. In the meantime, let's burn fuels that we can
produce here - domestic oil, or better yet, biofuels.

Problem is that US demand is quite a bit higher than US production, even when
you factor in the biofuels. We *must* reduce demand -- our dependence on
Middle East petroleum jeopardizes our national security.

It's an inherently inefficient technology that makes poor use
of the chemical energy in gasoline, wasting most of it as heat. Until that
happens -- which will take a *long* time, given that there are a couple
hundred million cars in the US -- we're stuck with buying oil from the
buggers.

I'd rather give money to the USA'n farmers than to the arabs, anyone else?

Can't argue with you there. Not much, anyway. Trouble is, if we stop buying
oil from the Arabs, we're gonna run out pretty quickly -- which raises
*another* national security issue: the depletion of our own supplies. As long
as our demand remains as high as it is, we're actually better off buying oil
from the Middle East than consuming our own. If the oil is running out, better
_for_us_ that we use up the Arabs' oil, than use up ours. If we use ours up
first, before we've created technologies to replace the gasoline-fueled
internal combustion engine, then we *must* buy from the Arabs, and they will
be able to extort whatever they wish from us.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...

Anyone who scoffed at the notion that the mainstream press (CBS in
particular) is liberal can just shut up now, I guess.


Before 9/11 I would have believed this, but since then I have learned that
people are unable to get past their political biases and see the truth. It
is an amazing thing.

dwhite

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...

Anyone who scoffed at the notion that the mainstream press (CBS in
particular) is liberal can just shut up now, I guess.


Before 9/11 I would have believed this, but since then I have learned that
people are unable to get past their political biases and see the truth. It
is an amazing thing.

dwhite

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...
Todd Fatheree wrote:
: : FACTS that substantiate that claim. Show me where it was concluded
that
: : Bush lied about anything.
:
: His TANG service.

: Yeah, there's *so* much evidence that the Dems had to cook up some phony
: papers to show it.

I'm of the opinion that if these docs were forged, they originated in Karl
Rove's lair of deceit.

And aside from their originality, I'd like to see a detailed exmination
of the *content* of the memos.


Andy, how about get off your Arss and go look for the info. It is all over
the internet...not at all hard to find. Of course when you do find it you
will probably attribute it to biased reporting.

dwhite

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...
Todd Fatheree wrote:
: : FACTS that substantiate that claim. Show me where it was concluded
that
: : Bush lied about anything.
:
: His TANG service.

: Yeah, there's *so* much evidence that the Dems had to cook up some phony
: papers to show it.

I'm of the opinion that if these docs were forged, they originated in Karl
Rove's lair of deceit.

And aside from their originality, I'd like to see a detailed exmination
of the *content* of the memos.


Andy, how about get off your Arss and go look for the info. It is all over
the internet...not at all hard to find. Of course when you do find it you
will probably attribute it to biased reporting.

dwhite