funny things to do on a bike

Mark Hickey wrote:

Keith Willoughby wrote:

He didn't write a book - Ron Suskind did.

[...]

Again, you choose to believe a guy who is obviously upset at being
fired by GWB, and who made a lot of money writing a sensational book.

If you're going to argue, at least get your facts right.

It's a giant conspiracy. Why, I KNOW at least 70% of the people in
the US THINK he wrote that book. He must have said he did. I can't
find the quote, but it's because it was all a carefully crafted
deception.

It's OK to admit you were wrong sometimes, you know.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong."
- HL Mencken

David Kerber wrote:


Oh, come on! You are intentionally mis-reading his post. He meant 7
people, not 7 thousand people, and you know it.

:-) It's good to clear that up. After all, I directly asked "How many
thousands?" and he directly answered "Seven."


But now there's a problem. Mark was using that incident to "prove" that
primitively-deliverd sarin is a weapon of mass destruction.

A small handgun can kill seven people. So can a club.

Is there anything that is _not_ a "weapon of mass destruction," by this
standard?


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

You will notice Mark even defends the
spewings of Rush Limbaugh, *even after clearly admitting* that he
doesn't listen to Rush often. How on earth can you defend something
you have not heard yourself? Easy - Rush is conservative, so what he
says must be True(tm) and Right(tm). After all, conservatives are
never wrong, on anything, ever.

What I said is that he can be entertaining (and he can...) and that
(contrary to liberal opinion), having Rush state a fact doesn't change
the veracity of that fact.

Unfortunately, Rush often presents lies as facts, so the problem is
how to tell the difference, and the True Believers (affectionately
known as "Dittoheads") don't even bother to try. For instance, he was
one of the main sources of the lie that Ken Lay had stayed in the
Lincoln Bedroom during the Clinton administration. I personally saw
that lie stated as fact on Limbaugh's website.

JP

Frank Krygowski wrote:

gwhite wrote:



Frank Krygowski wrote:


"Less" [taxes] referred to "less than they did before the tax cut."
I'm surprised there was anyone who couldn't figure that out!

Just as I thought. Taxes are not to be questioned, they are only to
be paid. The guvmint knows what is best for us.

Um... I'm sorry, but you're so deep into a non sequitur that you're
absolutely impossible to follow.

I follow you. Taxes are to be blindly paid because you are morally
superior to evil rich folks.

What moron, rich, poor, or otherwise, wouldn't like to pay

less taxes?


Since you ask: I'd think that people who had more money than they
could ever hope of spending in any reasonable way, and who had some
sense of social conscience, wouldn't care much about paying less taxes.


I see, they only need to be as moral (according to your description,
of course!), and have the grand social conscience that you do.


Personally, I think that avarice is not moral. But that's just the
opinion of me and several million religious leaders down through the
ages. Pay us no mind.

Wow. You sure do keep track of a lot of religious leaders. And no, I
don't listen to someone because they are religious, I listen as long as
someone makes sense, which you do not.

I have no idea of what "spending in any reasonable way" is.

Let me give you some extreme counter-examples. Read up on the personal
fortune and spending of Bill Gates. Or, if you prefer history, Louis
XIV of France. That level of personal luxury is not "spending in a
reasonable way." How much palace does one person (or small family)
really need?

There are, and have been, very rich people who lived rather modestly and
donated much to help others. There are more very rich people who live
quite ostentatiously. I tend to admire the former.

The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
individual wealth (as the judgement goes). The question is about
designing a political system (laws and rights) with the least amount of
defects and is best in terms of tradeoffs. Only a fool claims
perfection. The question is regarding the total balance. On the
balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral or not --
than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.

You seem to admire the latter.

You are cracked. I made no statement that could be inferred as admiration.

Fine. But I don't think my kids and grandkids should be
facing federal debt to help pay for Gates' mansion.

Give me a ****ing break. You could confiscate all his wealth and not
put a dent in the debt. And by the way, it isn't your kids and
grandkids money that is paying for the mansion, it is his money.
Preposterous!

If anything is wrong, it is to unquestionably hand over money to the
guvmint if one does not have to.

If _anything_ is wrong? That seems to say that paying taxes ranks close
to murder.

It causes a concentration of power. I'm not saying there are no
justifiable taxes, there are. My point is that one tactically avoids
concentration of power as much as possible.

That's a foolish statement, indeed. And your (probably) deliberate
misspelling doesn't make it sound any more intelligent.

The deliberate misspelling is accorded to your lemming style of "it is
right because they told me it was." Yes, the lemming is certainly lacking.

I'm nowhere close to the salary level that got big dollar amounts
back from Bush's tax cut plan. But, as examples, I _always_ vote for
school levies, library levies, etc.

My inclination is *not* to do so...

I'm not surprised. Nor impressed.

You're punching air.

I'm aware, though, that we've had school levies defeated by the
people living in the McMansions out in what were recently
cornfields. They have enough money to buy those places (I don't) but
they don't want to give any of their money to the community.

They are giving money to the community by virtue of them simply being
there

Absolutely false.

You are off your rocker. You believe they somehow escape property
taxes, income taxes, sales taxes,... etcetera? LOL. Again, it is
simply that they apparently don't pay as much as one who deems himself
on the moral high ground (you) think they should.

Instead of justifying the taxes _to begin with_, which is the proper
approach, you prefer to presume that the government is the warden of
the people: over and above them. This is an abomination to free
people.

I think you have very little ideea what I "prefer to presume."

You come off like a socialist, which is anti-freedom and anti-noble.

Sorry, but I am not a socialist.

You are.

You are once again jumping to
unwarranted conclusions.

Your confiscatory statements can be characterized classic socialist. So
I take it this fall you will be voting The American Socialist Party
(democrat) rather than The American Christian Party (republican). That
must be a tough choice for you: you need to choose between all those
millions of highly moral religious leaders and the socialist way. My
condolances, it must be tough to be in your shoes.

You are not even aware of your own ideological foundations. I can tell
you mine: they "start" (no such real thing) with works like Adam Smith's
_Wealth of Nations_ and the _Federalist Papers_. If you want to attack
the foundations, now you know where to start.

It's clear to me that you are an ideologue who's not capable of rational
discussion. Little wonder you don't value education, when it did so
little for you.

I know bull**** when I smell it. It did that for me.

Buzz off.

Sounds like you've been coasting for a little too long. Time to muscle up.

gwhite wrote:


I follow you. Taxes are to be blindly paid because you are morally
superior to evil rich folks.


He probably is but that's not the point. It's clear that those people
Frank are talking about wouldn't pay ANYTHING if given the choice. What
the **** is wrong about people paying to best of their ability. I know
plenty of rich democrats and rich republicans, and it sure ain't the
republicans who are contributing to the upkeep of our communities.




The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
individual wealth (as the judgement goes). The question is about
designing a political system (laws and rights) with the least amount of
defects and is best in terms of tradeoffs. Only a fool claims
perfection. The question is regarding the total balance. On the
balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral or not --
than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.


There's not just a few filthy rich folks, if you haven't noticed the middle
class is disappeaing.


You are off your rocker. You believe they somehow escape property
taxes, income taxes, sales taxes,... etcetera?

Escape property taxes? No. Sales taxes? Of course not. Income taxes?
Absolutely.


Your confiscatory statements can be characterized classic socialist. So
I take it this fall you will be voting The American Socialist Party
(democrat) rather than The American Christian Party (republican). That
must be a tough choice for you: you need to choose between all those
millions of highly moral religious leaders

"Millions of highly moral religious leaders"? You're joking, right? Or do
you mean war-mongering, greedy, intolerant, hypocritical Christians that
are so far from Christ's path that it's pathetic?

Greg

David Kerber wrote:

says...

From http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/9708/msg00394.html :

Extinguishing Media: USE METAL-X TYPE EXTINGUISHER, DRY SAND, OR SLAG.
Special Fire Fighting Proc: DON'T USE WATER.
Unusual Fire And Expl Hazrds: AUTOIGNITION TEMP: 1472F. PYROPHORIC IN
FINELY DIVIDED STATE AS A RESULT OF MACHINING OR GRINDING OPERATIONS.
RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL CLASS 7.

Dust autoignites at room temperature? Don't use water to extinguish
it? Produces a radioactive ash particulate?

No, it autoigintes at 1472F, which is a bit above room temperature.
Except for the radioactivity, that description applies to many heavy
metals.

A big chunk of the metal burns in air at that temperature. Uranium
_dust_ (like the stuff that you get when a uranium projectile hits
armor plate at 5000 feet/second) is "pyrophoric", as the quoted
material states, which means it combusts spontaneously in room
temperature air. If you look up some material data like the
OSHA/NIOSH document I referenced earlier, you'll see that specifically
stated.

There are very few common materials that do this.

Chalo Colina

You seem very fond of simplifying (maybe even oversimplifying) complex
issues
Frank so here's a few yes/no question for you:
1- Were all those UN resolutions demanding Hussein account for the
materials
passed solely to satisfy someone's idle curiousity, i.e., did the UN
believe
they had evidence that he possessed such materials?
2- Did Hussein comply with the terms of any of those resolutions?
3- Were the UN weapons inspectors ever given complete and unfettered
access?

4-Which one of the above constitutes a mandate to unilaterally engage
in miltary operations, in direct contravention of the governing body
mentioned above?
--
Jonesy

I believe that the reasons given for the recent military operations are the
facts that the first Gulf War was never ended. That is, it would have been
ended if Saddam had complied with the requirements, but he didn't.
Therefore, this second war is merely a continuation of the first, and, as
such, not in direct contravention of anything.

Pat in TX

gwhite wrote:


I follow you. Taxes are to be blindly paid because you are morally
superior to evil rich folks.

Hmmm. I don't see where I said that. Such a transparent straw man
argument isn't likely to fool anyone with any intelligence.

[fk:] Personally, I think that avarice is not moral. But that's just the
opinion of me and several million religious leaders down through the
ages. Pay us no mind.


Wow. You sure do keep track of a lot of religious leaders. And no, I
don't listen to someone because they are religious, I listen as long as
someone makes sense, which you do not.

Well, why not be blunt about your opinion? Just tell us: do you think
avarice _is_ moral? Don't be shy!



I have no idea of what "spending in any reasonable way" is.


Let me give you some extreme counter-examples. Read up on the
personal fortune and spending of Bill Gates. Or, if you prefer
history, Louis XIV of France. That level of personal luxury is not
"spending in a reasonable way." How much palace does one person (or
small family) really need?

There are, and have been, very rich people who lived rather modestly
and donated much to help others. There are more very rich people who
live quite ostentatiously. I tend to admire the former.

The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
individual wealth (as the judgement goes).

For me, those are parts of "the question." Clearly, you care much more
about other things - primarily, money in your pocket.

On the
balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral or not --
than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.

I doubt there is any country on earth that does not "have a few filthy
rich folks." So your fearsome armageddon of socialism ("Horrors! We
won't have the rich!!") seems pretty unlikely.

You are cracked.

Gosh! I hadn't heard such a witty rebuke since grade 9!


[fk:] Fine. But I don't think my kids and grandkids should be
facing federal debt to help pay for Gates' mansion.

Give me a ****ing break...

.... but I hear obscenity enough from other low lifes. No need to spew
more.

You could confiscate all his wealth and not
put a dent in the debt. And by the way, it isn't your kids and
grandkids money that is paying for the mansion, it is his money.
Preposterous!

To spell it out more slowly for you:

Bush's tax cuts went predominanly to Gates and other super-rich. Partly
as a result of those tax cuts, the federal deficity soared. It will
have to be repaid.

In other words, part of the money Gates lavished on his self-cleaning
bathrooms will ultimately be paid to the government by us, and by our kids.

[fk:] [You seem] to say that paying taxes ranks
close to murder.

It causes a concentration of power.

Then you really _do_ believe paying (at least certain) taxes is nearly
as bad as murder??

I'm not saying there are no
justifiable taxes, there are. My point is that one tactically avoids
concentration of power as much as possible.

That's libertarian nonsense. There will _always_ be concentration of
power. Absent government intervention, power will become concentrated
in those most inclined to violence, and those with the largest amounts
of money. In a short time, those two groups will become one, and will
exercise absolute power. Think of organized crime, for example - and
think of the Mafia running the country.

One main purpose of representative government is to prevent such
dominance by a few. It's not perfect, of course, but I think most
people would rather have a reasonable tax burden used to support, say,
the police and the FBI, rather than turning the country over to the
likes of Al Capone.

I'm aware, though, that we've had school levies defeated by the
people living in the McMansions out in what were recently
cornfields. They have enough money to buy those places (I don't)
but they don't want to give any of their money to the community.


They are giving money to the community by virtue of them simply being
there


Absolutely false.


You are off your rocker. You believe they somehow escape property
taxes, income taxes, sales taxes,... etcetera? LOL.

There have been several studies that have shown that expansionist
developments like the ones I described are a net drain on a community
budget. The extension of infrastructure, the increased road
maintenance, the generation of the need for new or larger school
buildings, the need for more safety forces and law enforcement
personnel, all make these things money losers. Simultaneously, they
lower the desirability of housing in most American city centers, and
thereby produce negative effects in those older neighborhoods and inner
suburbs.

So, in effect, they pay some taxes, but they don't pay their way. And
again, they've refused to help with even local school levies on several
occasions.


Your confiscatory statements can be characterized classic socialist.

It seems clear to me that this is a question of perspective. The last
time I took a survey on my economic views, I placed quite close to the
nation's center. Doubtlessly, you would place at the extreme
libertarian edge. From your viewpoint, Attila the Hun would probably
look like a socialist!

You've found a simple ideology that you can totally embrace. In a way,
that's enviable. It's going to save you lots of headaches - the kind
that come from hard thinking.

So I won't try to convert you to any rational position. It would be a
waste of time, and perhaps a little cruel. You know, similar to
throwing a non-swimmer into deep water.

Any future responses will actually be written for the amusement of other
readers, if any. And I'll try to keep those to a minimum.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Look at the quality of the Al Qaeda terrorists and tell me you think
any of them could brew up a viable batch of sarin.

Uh, Al Quaeda terrorists are the cream of the crop. They're well
led, well organized, and when they do attack it is well planned and
executed, for the most part.

They are patient and not to be underestimated. Look at the Madrid
bombing for an example. I pick that one because one of today's
notable events was that the last Spanish troops left Iraq.

What an exquisitely evil operation, and it wasn't a suicide mission
for Al Qaeda, granted some of them died later but it wasn't some
Hammas bombing. It was well timed for the Spanish election and it
paid off to the tune of neutralizing a coalition country and vanishing
1400 troops off the battlefield.

As well as killing approximately 200 people and wounding over a
thousand. This at the cost of about 20 terrorists dead or in
custody, roughly.

I mean, if you are going to have to have terrorists as enemies,
you don't want no stinkin' second raters.

Don't make the mistake of confusing the farm team with the pros,
is my advice.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
in.edu__________

Eric S. Sande wrote:
Look at the quality of the Al Qaeda terrorists and tell me you think
any of them could brew up a viable batch of sarin.

Uh, Al Quaeda terrorists are the cream of the crop. They're well
led, well organized, and when they do attack it is well planned and
executed, for the most part.

They are patient and not to be underestimated. Look at the Madrid
bombing for an example. I pick that one because one of today's
notable events was that the last Spanish troops left Iraq.

What an exquisitely evil operation, and it wasn't a suicide mission
for Al Qaeda, granted some of them died later but it wasn't some
Hammas bombing. It was well timed for the Spanish election and it
paid off to the tune of neutralizing a coalition country and vanishing
1400 troops off the battlefield.

As well as killing approximately 200 people and wounding over a
thousand. This at the cost of about 20 terrorists dead or in
custody, roughly.

I mean, if you are going to have to have terrorists as enemies,
you don't want no stinkin' second raters.

Don't make the mistake of confusing the farm team with the pros,
is my advice.

First of all, Mark Hickey wrote the comment to which you replied, even
though you posted under Hunrobe (but attributed no one).

Second of all, I'm pretty sure Mark's point was that Al Qaeda is indeed
quite capable.

Bill "other than that, well put" S.