Divorce Your Car --and get into a relationship with a Bike!

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:18:48 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , Bill Funk wrote:

Also there is probably a fair number of other reasons for invading
including having a base of operations in the region and generally
causing instability, which increases prices further. A bombing then calm
for years then a bombing doesn't keep the prices as high as invasion and
instability every day.

Wow. A nice conspiracy, there. And, like most such, it requires no
actual evidence.

What was the actual evidence the reason was WMDs? Oh, GWB said so. and he
_never_ lies, right?

How stupid do you want to appear to be?
Do you expect me to believe that Bush only has advisors that told him
the WMDs didn't exist? Really?

The president wants to do X for reason Y. He knows the nation isn't going
to go for reason Y, so he tells them reason Z. That's politics. That's
how things work.

How cynical.
You aren't in a position of power or authority, I can tell, becasue
you have an extremely cynical sense of what is entailed in such
positions.
Instead of letting your dislike for Bush rule your mind, think outside
of that box. You're smart, your posts here show that, but your
thinking is far too constrained by your dislikes that you can't see
the other side at all.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:12:21 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , R Brickston wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:18:48 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , Bill Funk wrote:

Also there is probably a fair number of other reasons for invading
including having a base of operations in the region and generally
causing instability, which increases prices further. A bombing then calm
for years then a bombing doesn't keep the prices as high as invasion and
instability every day.

Wow. A nice conspiracy, there. And, like most such, it requires no
actual evidence.

What was the actual evidence the reason was WMDs? Oh, GWB said so. and he
_never_ lies, right?

"...I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and
biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations.
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to
eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our
troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people. The citizens
of Iraq have suffered the most for Saddam Hussein's activities; sadly,
those same citizens now stand to suffer more. I have supported efforts
to ease the humanitarian situation in Iraq and my thoughts and prayers
are with the innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as with the families of
U.S. troops participating in the current action.

I believe in negotiated solutions to international conflict. This is,
unfortunately, not going to be the case in this situation where Saddam
Hussein has been a repeat offender, ignoring the international
community's requirement that he come clean with his weapons program.
While I support the President, I hope and pray that this conflict can
be resolved quickly and that the international community can find a
lasting solution through diplomatic means. "

snip

Wooptie do da day.... an uncited quote. I've seen it before can't quite
place it... probably from someone on the left side of the single
effective political party.

Google is your friend..
http://www.google.com/search?hs=FkM&...22&btnG=Search
You put a lot of effort into your own arguments, but fail to put any
into learning about the other side.
But I repeat myself.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

OK, since the decision that will make bike riding safe is political,
let's scrutinize its secrets...

"Democracy consists of choosing your dictators, after they've told you
what you think it is you want to hear." -Alan Coren

And this one...

"Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the government
listens." -Alastair Farrugia

Oh, that one was so good. So let's sum it up: "We live under a dictator
that allow us to freely speak, though he doesn't listen."

http://www.democracy.ru/english/quotes.php

Other quotes...

"Dictatorships are one-way streets. Democracy boasts two-way traffic."
-Albert Moravia

"Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is
silence about truth." -Aldous Huxley

That one was deep. Everybody knows the truth but they dare not say it.
And look at this one....

"The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they
don't have any."
-Alice Walker

And this would threaten the order in the jungle...

"Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the
rulers." -Aristotle

And here they must be talking about the lion...

"The wild, cruel beast is not behind the bars of the cage. He is in
front of it." -Axel Munthe

Many more quotes to entertain yourself are found at the link above. I
hope you use them responsably and don't start a revolution.

donquijote1954 wrote:

RJ wrote:
donquijote1954 wrote:

RJ wrote:
Well, see. "We the People" could be riding bikes, but "they, our
political representatives" don' t make it happen. So we got a problem
with them, no?

Not me. Almost certainly not a majority. There you are.

They represent the status quo, Big Oil and SUVs. Money gets them to
power, money is their choice when taking decisions.

You have a problem with them. Most people don't.

Not if you look the other way or if you are at the top of the food
chain. Things look different when you are a carnivore than when you are
vegetarian monkey. You know, monkeys got to keep jumping all the time,
never coming down to where the lion is, just to survive. But hey, wait
a minute, THIS IS A DEMOCRACY,

There's your problem; a basic misunderstanding of our form of
government.

donquijote1954 wrote:

RJ wrote:
Only reality check. Look around and see how "We the People" is doing.
Not bike lanes,

Newsflash: "we the people" don't care about bike lanes.

Why should they care about it,

Either people do or don't care; whichever way it is, the government
exists to support what people want, not vice versa.

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:08:51 -0400, dgk wrote:

Project for a New American Century. Not WMD, not 9/11, not "freeing
the Iraqi People". World control is what it is about. Of course,
they're pretty inept so we ended up handing Iraq to the Committee For
The Islamic Revolution In Iraq. Great victory for America. But that
wasn't the Plan. The Plan was to turn Iraq over to Rumsfeld's friend
Chalabi. You know about him? The guy giving Judith Miller the scoop on
the WMDs? Here, a little reminder of our friend:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072806Z.shtml

We invaded Iraq, with the intention of turning it into an American
colony, and "accidently" turned it into a fledgling democracy
(ignoring your stupid "handing Iraq to the Committee For The Islamic
Revolution In Iraq" idiocy)?
I have a 100mpg carb that will fit whatever vehicle you drive. Only
$10,000. If you want it, I'll give you the Western Union information
you need to wire me the cash, after which I will FedEx it to you.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 02:42:01 GMT, Bill Baka
wrote:

Someone please explain why military service is so damned important to
get elected? It invokes visions of taking orders from others to go and
storm a hill and get shot because someone of higher 'rank' told you to.
Is this the mark of a leader or a follower?

Yes, it does invoke that vision, because that's the vision that's been
fed to today's generation.
Not so long ago it invoked a vision of those who understood the
concept of the obligations of true patriotism; of the concept that
freedom isn't free; the concept of responsibilitiy that comes with
priviledge.
Many of the brightest among us have a high level college degree like a
Masters or Ph.D. (or 2 or 3) and would have never considered being a
military grunt.

Of course you wouldn't; that's for the underclass, isn't it?
You are far too important to be bothered with a feeling of owing
something to the society that enabled you to reach those exalted
heights.
I know the Kennedy's ( the boys who were old enough) were all pushed
into the service by their father Joseph and that is how his pride and
joy, Joe, Jr. got killed on a top secret bombing mission against Germany.
Comments?

Lots. But you've already demonstrated that you wouldn't understand
them.
Bill Baka
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 11:50:29 GMT, "George Conklin"
wrote:


"Matthew Russotto" wrote in message
et...
In article ,
Wayne Pein wrote:
Mass transit typically does not save fuel. Surprising, but both private
cars and mass transit require roughly 3500 BTUs/passenger mile.


http://www.bts.gov/publications/nati...stics/2003/htm
l/table_04_20.html

Oh, that's a beautiful chart.

The highlight for 2001:

Passenger car : 3557 BTU/passenger mile
Transit motor bus: 3698 BTU/passenger mile

And I doubt that takes into account the fact that taking a car is
almost always more direct than taking a bus.

When you get it there, it rests until you need to take it back. The
transit bus returns empty for a second trip, or empty to a garage. Then it
must return empty to pick up its load in the PM. Then it goes empty back to
the garage. And then it runs mostly empty for the night-time trips, and for
the weekends and Sundays it is there for those who are too selfish to have
cars.


What are you talking about? Our buses run a route, picking up people
all the way and dropping them off. Then they go back, picking up and
dropping off. Repeat all day long. Our bus depots are located near the
major transit hubs. The only more efficient way to move people is to
do it by rail but only where the rails are.

We currently have a project underway to speed up bus service by
impinging on the "rights" of cars, for instance dedicating a lane to
bus use only. That makes it even more efficient. They'll squeal now
but more folks will shift to using the buses if they're quicker.

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 04:05:44 GMT, Bill Baka
wrote:

Roger Houston wrote:
"Bill Baka" wrote in message
...
Someone please explain why military service is so damned important to get
elected? It invokes visions of taking orders from others to go and storm a
hill and get shot because someone of higher 'rank' told you to. Is this
the mark of a leader or a follower?
Many of the brightest among us have a high level college degree like a
Masters or Ph.D. (or 2 or 3) and would have never considered being a
military grunt.

News flash: Enduring years of school doesn't make you bright, either. Enjoy
your privilege, but don't forget why you post in English instead of German,
Japanese or Arabic.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand
ready to do violence on their behalf.



True.
And if Viet Nam had been a real war I would have happily joined, but not
for an idealistic clash which made victims out of the people in a far
away land.
Military service is good when a war is to be fought, but not for
political leverage.
Bill Baka

So, if there were a 'real war", you'd enlist?
How about if the US were attacked, as in, for example, Pearl Harbor?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On 3 Aug 2006 09:39:00 -0700, "donquijote1954"
wrote:


dgk wrote:
America must have been a wild place back then. Many suicide attacks?

Back then the Indians were the terrorists, no???

"A terrorist is a person who doesn't have an army to fight for them."
My father told me that twenty years ago; he was a very smart guy.

Right, the Jews used some of that when they were fighting the British
Lion. They now became one.

Confusion. Used some of terrorism? And now have an army?

My favorite is Rep. Peter King (R-NY) howling about the horrible
terrorists. He never seems to understand that some people consider his
friends in the IRA terrorists.