OT: Great Movie Line from an Old Bob Hope Movie

[Jim Thompson]

OT: Great Movie Line from an Old Bob Hope Movie...

http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/Greatest_Movie_Line.wmv

...Jim Thompson

[Tom Del Rosso]

Post by Jim Thompson
OT: Great Movie Line from an Old Bob Hope Movie...
http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/Greatest_Movie_Line.wmv

I wonder how they sneaked that past the "Motherland has been Invaded"
hollywood writers of the period.
:)

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:58:30 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"

Post by Tom Del Rosso

Post by Jim Thompson
OT: Great Movie Line from an Old Bob Hope Movie...
http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/Greatest_Movie_Line.wmv

I wonder how they sneaked that past the "Motherland has been Invaded"
hollywood writers of the period.
:)

Back in those days all that was forbidden was showing too much tit.
See "Aviator" for an example.

...Jim Thompson

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Jim Thompson
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:58:30 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"

Post by Tom Del Rosso

Post by Jim Thompson
OT: Great Movie Line from an Old Bob Hope Movie...
http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/Greatest_Movie_Line.wmv

I wonder how they sneaked that past the "Motherland has been Invaded"
hollywood writers of the period.
:)

Back in those days all that was forbidden was showing too much tit.
See "Aviator" for an example.

All you have to do is dub "Republicans" over "Democrats"
and you see how it applies today.

--Blair
"And nobody's laughing."

[Tom Del Rosso]

Post by Jim Thompson
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:58:30 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"

Post by Tom Del Rosso

Post by Jim Thompson
OT: Great Movie Line from an Old Bob Hope Movie...
http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/Greatest_Movie_Line.wmv

I wonder how they sneaked that past the "Motherland has been Invaded"
hollywood writers of the period.
:)

Back in those days all that was forbidden was showing too much tit.
See "Aviator" for an example.

Actually, at *some* studios it was forbidden to make anti-Nazi movies
during the period of the Russo-German alliance. They made great anti-Nazi
movies in the 30s though.

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:07:27 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
OT: Great Movie Line from an Old Bob Hope Movie...
http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/Greatest_Movie_Line.wmv
...Jim Thompson

Will Rogers said

"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

John

[Warren Weber]

Jim.. You are putting up a lot of OT lately, You need more food in your wine
(<:)

Post by Jim Thompson
OT: Great Movie Line from an Old Bob Hope Movie...
http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/Greatest_Movie_Line.wmv
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:[phone] | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:[phone] | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:20:55 -0600, "Warren Weber" <hiview68NO

Post by Warren Weber
Jim.. You are putting up a lot of OT lately, You need more food in your wine
(<:)

This was sent to me by my daughter in Yuma.

Of course she just happens to be Republican Party Chairwoman for Yuma
County ;-)

Post by Warren Weber

Post by Jim Thompson
OT: Great Movie Line from an Old Bob Hope Movie...
http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/Greatest_Movie_Line.wmv
...Jim Thompson

...Jim Thompson

[Michael A. Terrell]

Post by Jim Thompson
This was sent to me by my daughter in Yuma.
Of course she just happens to be Republican Party Chairwoman for Yuma
County ;-)

Sorry to hear that. Better luck next time?

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:12:55 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"

Post by Michael A. Terrell

Post by Jim Thompson
This was sent to me by my daughter in Yuma.
Of course she just happens to be Republican Party Chairwoman for Yuma
County ;-)

Sorry to hear that. Better luck next time?

Yep. We're going to round up Democrats and send 'em back to Mexico
;-)

...Jim Thompson

[Michael A. Terrell]

Post by Jim Thompson
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:12:55 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"

Post by Michael A. Terrell

Post by Jim Thompson
This was sent to me by my daughter in Yuma.
Of course she just happens to be Republican Party Chairwoman for Yuma
County ;-)

Sorry to hear that. Better luck next time?

Yep. We're going to round up Democrats and send 'em back to Mexico
;-)

Its a good thing you have such a rich fanasy life.

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:59:55 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"

Post by Michael A. Terrell

Post by Jim Thompson
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:12:55 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"

Post by Michael A. Terrell

Post by Jim Thompson
This was sent to me by my daughter in Yuma.
Of course she just happens to be Republican Party Chairwoman for Yuma
County ;-)

Sorry to hear that. Better luck next time?

Yep. We're going to round up Democrats and send 'em back to Mexico
;-)

Its a good thing you have such a rich fanasy life.

Yep, And I have good fantasies as well ;-)

...Jim Thompson

[Michael A. Terrell]

Post by Jim Thompson
Yep, And I have good fantasies as well ;-)
Jim Thompson

Did you hear about your fearless leader's latest insult to our
Veterans?

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:49:21 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"

Post by Michael A. Terrell

Post by Jim Thompson
Yep, And I have good fantasies as well ;-)
Jim Thompson

Did you hear about your fearless leader's latest insult to our
Veterans?

No. Tell me about it. Facts only please, no leftist weenieisms ;-)

...Jim Thompson

[Michael A. Terrell]

Post by Jim Thompson
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:49:21 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"

Post by Michael A. Terrell
Did you hear about your fearless leader's latest insult to our
Veterans?

No. Tell me about it. Facts only please, no leftist weenieisms ;-)
Jim Thompson

He was suposed to write a letter that was to be read at the
re-dedication of the local Veterans park. He had months to do it, but
last Saturday morning (Aug, 20th, 2005) rolled around for the big event
after years of planning and hard work to raise the money, and it still
hadn't arrived.

I was there as a local Republican tried to make a joke out of it,
blaming the US post office, but there were a lot of pissed of Veterans.
I guess that his vacation in Crawford and meeting with Lance Armstrong
at his ranch were more important than his word to the 45,000+ veterans
of this county. At least the three other politicians who made promises
had the honor to deliver their letters, on time.

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 03:19:35 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"

Post by Michael A. Terrell

Post by Jim Thompson
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:49:21 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"

Post by Michael A. Terrell
Did you hear about your fearless leader's latest insult to our
Veterans?

No. Tell me about it. Facts only please, no leftist weenieisms ;-)
Jim Thompson

He was suposed to write a letter that was to be read at the
re-dedication of the local Veterans park. He had months to do it, but
last Saturday morning (Aug, 20th, 2005) rolled around for the big event
after years of planning and hard work to raise the money, and it still
hadn't arrived.

Cindy Sheahan has taken all his time ;-)

Post by Michael A. Terrell
I was there as a local Republican tried to make a joke out of it,
blaming the US post office,

That's not unlikely. I've been raising a stir around here because of
10-day-transit times to downtown Phoenix, lost mail, etc.

Post by Michael A. Terrell
but there were a lot of pissed of Veterans.
I guess that his vacation in Crawford and meeting with Lance Armstrong
at his ranch were more important than his word to the 45,000+ veterans
of this county. At least the three other politicians who made promises
had the honor to deliver their letters, on time.

I don't know the significance of the "letter", please elaborate.

...Jim Thompson

[Michael A. Terrell]

Post by Jim Thompson
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 03:19:35 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"

Post by Michael A. Terrell

Post by Jim Thompson
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:49:21 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"

Post by Michael A. Terrell
Did you hear about your fearless leader's latest insult to our
Veterans?

No. Tell me about it. Facts only please, no leftist weenieisms ;-)
Jim Thompson

He was suposed to write a letter that was to be read at the
re-dedication of the local Veterans park. He had months to do it, but
last Saturday morning (Aug, 20th, 2005) rolled around for the big event
after years of planning and hard work to raise the money, and it still
hadn't arrived.

Cindy Sheahan has taken all his time ;-)

Are you saying that veterans need to park themselves outside his
ranch to get what he promised them?

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by Michael A. Terrell
I was there as a local Republican tried to make a joke out of it,
blaming the US post office,

That's not unlikely. I've been raising a stir around here because of
10-day-transit times to downtown Phoenix, lost mail, etc.

I'm sure the post office considers anything that you mail a lot less
important than any piece of mail from the Office of the President.

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by Michael A. Terrell
but there were a lot of pissed of Veterans.
I guess that his vacation in Crawford and meeting with Lance Armstrong
at his ranch were more important than his word to the 45,000+ veterans
of this county. At least the three other politicians who made promises
had the honor to deliver their letters, on time.

I don't know the significance of the "letter", please elaborate.

It is the usual bullshit political boilerplate thanking them for
serving their country, and the ones who gave their lives. The content
isn't as important as the gesture which was made, then not delivered.
The statue listing all the presidents who server the military had his
name on it, but he couldn't get a piece of paper there that was supposed
to go with it. It was to be read before the statue was unveiled, then
framed and put on display at the park.

[John Woodgate]

I read in alt.binaries.schematics.electronic that Michael A. Terrell

Post by Michael A. Terrell
It is the usual bullshit political boilerplate thanking them for
serving their country, and the ones who gave their lives. The content
isn't as important as the gesture which was made, then not delivered.
The statue listing all the presidents who server the military had his
name on it, but he couldn't get a piece of paper there that was
supposed to go with it. It was to be read before the statue was
unveiled, then framed and put on display at the park.

He's delivering the usual b.... in Idaho on British TV as I write.
People are laughing, people are applauding. I can't tell if they are the
same people. (;-)

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Jim Thompson
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 03:19:35 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"

Post by Michael A. Terrell
re-dedication of the local Veterans park. He had months to do it, but
last Saturday morning (Aug, 20th, 2005) rolled around for the big event
after years of planning and hard work to raise the money, and it still
hadn't arrived.

Cindy Sheahan has taken all his time ;-)

You may have a definition of "all" or "time" that
those of us in the real world aren't acquainted with.

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by Michael A. Terrell
I was there as a local Republican tried to make a joke out of it,
blaming the US post office,

That's not unlikely. I've been raising a stir around here because of
10-day-transit times to downtown Phoenix, lost mail, etc.

Isn't the PO still quasi-governmental and therefore
one of Bush's jobs to keep up?

(Say 'yes'; it'll save on smileys.)

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by Michael A. Terrell
but there were a lot of pissed of Veterans.
I guess that his vacation in Crawford and meeting with Lance Armstrong
at his ranch were more important than his word to the 45,000+ veterans
of this county. At least the three other politicians who made promises
had the honor to deliver their letters, on time.

I don't know the significance of the "letter", please elaborate.

At this point its significance is that it's another
of der Fuhrer's glaring insults to people he purports
to "support".

--Blair
"You go to war with the army
you're going to stab in the back."
-GW Bush

[Jim Thompson]

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Jim Thompson
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 03:19:35 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"

Post by Michael A. Terrell
re-dedication of the local Veterans park. He had months to do it, but
last Saturday morning (Aug, 20th, 2005) rolled around for the big event
after years of planning and hard work to raise the money, and it still
hadn't arrived.

Cindy Sheahan has taken all his time ;-)

You may have a definition of "all" or "time" that
those of us in the real world aren't acquainted with.

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by Michael A. Terrell
I was there as a local Republican tried to make a joke out of it,
blaming the US post office,

That's not unlikely. I've been raising a stir around here because of
10-day-transit times to downtown Phoenix, lost mail, etc.

Isn't the PO still quasi-governmental and therefore
one of Bush's jobs to keep up?
(Say 'yes'; it'll save on smileys.)

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by Michael A. Terrell
but there were a lot of pissed of Veterans.
I guess that his vacation in Crawford and meeting with Lance Armstrong
at his ranch were more important than his word to the 45,000+ veterans
of this county. At least the three other politicians who made promises
had the honor to deliver their letters, on time.

I don't know the significance of the "letter", please elaborate.

At this point its significance is that it's another
of der Fuhrer's glaring insults to people he purports
to "support".
--Blair
"You go to war with the army
you're going to stab in the back."
-GW Bush

Why are Democrats so ignorant?

...Jim Thompson

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:08:03 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
Why are Democrats so ignorant?
...Jim Thompson

Why are ignorant people Democrats?

John

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:30:06 -0700, John Larkin

Post by John Larkin
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:08:03 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
Why are Democrats so ignorant?
...Jim Thompson

Why are ignorant people Democrats?
John

I guess they fall for the "it takes a village" BS ;-)

...Jim Thompson

[Curt Richards]

Post by Jim Thompson
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:30:06 -0700, John Larkin

Post by John Larkin
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:08:03 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
Why are Democrats so ignorant?
...Jim Thompson

Why are ignorant people Democrats?
John

I guess they fall for the "it takes a village" BS ;-)
...Jim Thompson

Nah! You have to be WILLFULLY ignorant to believe the things they
believe. If you deny the existence of God, truth and economic
incentives you can believe anything else you choose.

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Jim Thompson
Why are Democrats so ignorant?

Why do Republicans always project their own faults on their enemy?

--Blair
"Because it's a strategy."

[Jim Thompson]

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Jim Thompson
Why are Democrats so ignorant?

Why do Republicans always project their own faults on their enemy?
--Blair
"Because it's a strategy."

We don't. You just seem to take it personally. I know you can't help
it, and I feel sorry for you ;-)

...Jim Thompson

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Jim Thompson
Why are Democrats so ignorant?

Why do Republicans always project their own faults on their enemy?
"Because it's a strategy."

We don't. You just seem to take it personally. I know you can't help
it, and I feel sorry for you ;-)

I just said I wasn't taking it personally.

Why did you take it personally?

--Blair
"Yes you do."

[Jim Thompson]

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Jim Thompson
Why are Democrats so ignorant?

Why do Republicans always project their own faults on their enemy?
"Because it's a strategy."

We don't. You just seem to take it personally. I know you can't help
it, and I feel sorry for you ;-)

I just said I wasn't taking it personally.
Why did you take it personally?
--Blair
"Yes you do."

Looks like Democrat == Impotent

That must be why you're so upset ;-)

BTW, When's the next FroGlo Luncheon ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Jim Thompson
Why are Democrats so ignorant?

Why do Republicans always project their own faults on their enemy?
"Because it's a strategy."

We don't. You just seem to take it personally. I know you can't help
it, and I feel sorry for you ;-)

I just said I wasn't taking it personally.
Why did you take it personally?
"Yes you do."

Looks like Democrat == Impotent
That must be why you're so upset ;-)

Looks like Republican == Insensate

That must be why you need to make stuff up like the idea
that I'm upset.

Post by Jim Thompson
BTW, When's the next FroGlo Luncheon ?:-)

Dunno. Still can't believe that GloCro is still in business.

--Blair
"Must be good money in terrorist emails."

[Chuck Harris]

Post by Michael A. Terrell

Post by Jim Thompson
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:49:21 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"

Post by Michael A. Terrell
Did you hear about your fearless leader's latest insult to our
Veterans?

No. Tell me about it. Facts only please, no leftist weenieisms ;-)
Jim Thompson

He was suposed to write a letter that was to be read at the
re-dedication of the local Veterans park. He had months to do it, but
last Saturday morning (Aug, 20th, 2005) rolled around for the big event
after years of planning and hard work to raise the money, and it still
hadn't arrived.

My own little life is pretty small, and I doubt I would have the time to
craft such a speech.

Seriously, do you have any idea of how many of these *little* speeches the
president is asked for? Each one is of "critical" importance to the group that
does the asking, of course.

I would rather the president was doing something more important.... Even
if he is doing it from his ranch.

-Chuck

OBTW, ask JT, or me, or half of the guys on this group where they do their
real work. A whole lot of us do it from home offices, or briefcase offices.
I haven't worked in a "traditional" office for nearly 20 years. There is very
little work that a President needs to do that needs to be done at the Whitehouse.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Post by Chuck Harris
My own little life is pretty small, and I doubt I would have the time to
craft such a speech.
Seriously, do you have any idea of how many of these *little* speeches the
president is asked for? Each one is of "critical" importance to the group that
does the asking, of course.

Give me a break! I know dam well he doesn't even write the dam
things. Someone one staff types it up from a set of form letters. All
he has to do is sign it and let the staff mail it. He couldn't even do
that right.

Post by Chuck Harris
I would rather the president was doing something more important.... Even
if he is doing it from his ranch.
-Chuck
OBTW, ask JT, or me, or half of the guys on this group where they do their
real work. A whole lot of us do it from home offices, or briefcase offices.
I haven't worked in a "traditional" office for nearly 20 years. There is very
little work that a President needs to do that needs to be done at the Whitehouse.

Then they should just close the White House and sell the land to help
pay down the national debt.

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:48:28 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"

Post by Michael A. Terrell

Post by Chuck Harris
My own little life is pretty small, and I doubt I would have the time to
craft such a speech.
Seriously, do you have any idea of how many of these *little* speeches the
president is asked for? Each one is of "critical" importance to the group that
does the asking, of course.

Give me a break! I know dam well he doesn't even write the dam
things. Someone one staff types it up from a set of form letters. All
he has to do is sign it and let the staff mail it. He couldn't even do
that right.

Post by Chuck Harris
I would rather the president was doing something more important.... Even
if he is doing it from his ranch.
-Chuck
OBTW, ask JT, or me, or half of the guys on this group where they do their
real work. A whole lot of us do it from home offices, or briefcase offices.
I haven't worked in a "traditional" office for nearly 20 years. There is very
little work that a President needs to do that needs to be done at the Whitehouse.

Then they should just close the White House and sell the land to help
pay down the national debt.

Another exhibition of the mental capacity of Democrats. That's like
saying a single fart will cause global warming. Oooops! Bad example,
the leftist weenies DO believe that ;-)

...Jim Thompson

[Michael A. Terrell]

Post by Jim Thompson
Another exhibition of the mental capacity of Democrats. That's like
saying a single fart will cause global warming. Oooops! Bad example,
the leftist weenies DO believe that ;-)
...Jim Thompson

Another example of how easy it is for you to park your fat drunken
ass at your computer desk and make ignorant generalizations. I am not a
Democrat, or a Republican. The fact that you still think its funny that
he didn't honor his word speaks volumes about your lack of character.
While I am no fan of his brother, at least HE honored his word to the
old men in wheelchairs with oxygen bottles or using walkers to get the
half mile from the parking area to the park. They ignored health
warnings about possible heat stroke that day to be there, only to find
that they had been lied to once again.

Keep it up, Jim. We all know that you would have gone to Canada
instead of fighting for this country. On second thought, you would have
moved to France and fit right in. I'll bet that after a few weeks no one
would know that you weren't born there.

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 05:44:50 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"

Post by Michael A. Terrell

Post by Jim Thompson
Another exhibition of the mental capacity of Democrats. That's like
saying a single fart will cause global warming. Oooops! Bad example,
the leftist weenies DO believe that ;-)
...Jim Thompson

Another example of how easy it is for you to park your fat drunken
ass at your computer desk and make ignorant generalizations. I am not a
Democrat, or a Republican. The fact that you still think its funny that
he didn't honor his word speaks volumes about your lack of character.
While I am no fan of his brother, at least HE honored his word to the
old men in wheelchairs with oxygen bottles or using walkers to get the
half mile from the parking area to the park. They ignored health
warnings about possible heat stroke that day to be there, only to find
that they had been lied to once again.
Keep it up, Jim. We all know that you would have gone to Canada
instead of fighting for this country. On second thought, you would have
moved to France and fit right in. I'll bet that after a few weeks no one
would know that you weren't born there.

Careful there Michael, don't have apoplexy I was going to tell you to
go f... yourself, but I don't think you have the necessary appendages
;-)

"...his brother" ????

...Jim Thompson

[Jeff Thompson]

Post by Jim Thompson
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 05:44:50 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"

Post by Michael A. Terrell

Post by Jim Thompson
Another exhibition of the mental capacity of Democrats. That's like
saying a single fart will cause global warming. Oooops! Bad example,
the leftist weenies DO believe that ;-)
...Jim Thompson

Another example of how easy it is for you to park your fat drunken
ass at your computer desk and make ignorant generalizations. I am not a
Democrat, or a Republican. The fact that you still think its funny that
he didn't honor his word speaks volumes about your lack of character.
While I am no fan of his brother, at least HE honored his word to the
old men in wheelchairs with oxygen bottles or using walkers to get the
half mile from the parking area to the park. They ignored health
warnings about possible heat stroke that day to be there, only to find
that they had been lied to once again.
Keep it up, Jim. We all know that you would have gone to Canada
instead of fighting for this country. On second thought, you would have
moved to France and fit right in. I'll bet that after a few weeks no one
would know that you weren't born there.

Careful there Michael, don't have apoplexy I was going to tell you to
go f... yourself, but I don't think you have the necessary appendages
;-)
"...his brother" ????
...Jim Thompson

Surely you know the President has a brother? I believe he's the Governor
of Florida or something like that.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Post by Jeff Thompson
Surely you know the President has a brother? I believe he's the Governor
of Florida or something like that.

Yes, I do know who his brother is. HIS letter arrived on time, and
was read to the assembled Veterans as was promised.

[Winfield Hill]

Jim Thompson wrote...

Post by Jim Thompson
Another exhibition of the mental capacity of Democrats.
That's like saying a single fart will cause global warming.
Oooops! Bad example, the leftist weenies DO believe that ;-)

In the case of your farts, yes, there's little doubt.

[Jim Thompson]

On 29 Aug 2005 14:16:27 -0700, Winfield Hill

Post by Winfield Hill
Jim Thompson wrote...

Post by Jim Thompson
Another exhibition of the mental capacity of Democrats.
That's like saying a single fart will cause global warming.
Oooops! Bad example, the leftist weenies DO believe that ;-)

In the case of your farts, yes, there's little doubt.

You have no idea how correct you might be. I found a calendar item
from more than ten years ago saying "Wear a tie and NO farts" ;-)

...Jim Thompson

[John Woodgate]

I read in alt.binaries.schematics.electronic that Winfield Hill
<***@newsguy.com> wrote (in <***@drn.newsguy.com>)
about 'Great Movie Line from an Old Bob Hope Movie', on Mon, 29 Aug

Post by Winfield Hill
Jim Thompson wrote...

Post by Jim Thompson
Another exhibition of the mental capacity of Democrats.
That's like saying a single fart will cause global warming.
Oooops! Bad example, the leftist weenies DO believe that ;-)

In the case of your farts, yes, there's little doubt.

This thread is getting BORING!!! We all know that Republicans and
Democrats don't agree on which party is the dumber, but for those of us
in other countries, it's a funny-once joke.

Of course, the problem in the UK is that the three main political
parties don't disagree enough even to raise a frown, let alone a flame
war. That's because our highly-intelligent politicians have all got
things about right, and can I have my Life Peerage now, please?

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 06:54:59 +0100, John Woodgate

Post by John Woodgate
This thread is getting BORING!!! We all know that Republicans and
Democrats don't agree on which party is the dumber, but for those of us
in other countries, it's a funny-once joke.
Of course, the problem in the UK is that the three main political
parties don't disagree enough even to raise a frown, let alone a flame
war. That's because our highly-intelligent politicians have all got
things about right, and can I have my Life Peerage now, please?

Life Peerage? Do they rent them by the month, too?

John

[Chuck Harris]

Post by Michael A. Terrell

Post by Chuck Harris
My own little life is pretty small, and I doubt I would have the time to
craft such a speech.
Seriously, do you have any idea of how many of these *little* speeches the
president is asked for? Each one is of "critical" importance to the group that
does the asking, of course.

Give me a break! I know dam well he doesn't even write the dam
things. Someone one staff types it up from a set of form letters. All
he has to do is sign it and let the staff mail it. He couldn't even do
that right.

Given what you have just said, you are blaming GWB for a letter request
that he probably didn't even see.

You don't think that maybe you are stepping a little over the edge?

-Chuck

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Chuck Harris

Post by Chuck Harris
Given what you have just said, you are blaming GWB for a letter request
that he probably didn't even see.
You don't think that maybe you are stepping a little over the edge?

Lessee, now, where was it that the buck stopped? Oh, but he was a
Democrat, so I suppose it doesn't count. (;-)

[Michael A. Terrell]

Post by Chuck Harris
Given what you have just said, you are blaming GWB for a letter request
that he probably didn't even see.
You don't think that maybe you are stepping a little over the edge?
-Chuck

Well, Chuck, the General he personally sent to read the letter was
quite red faced, so I would hazzard a guess that he DID KNOW ABOUT IT.

[Chuck Harris]

Post by Michael A. Terrell

Post by Chuck Harris
Given what you have just said, you are blaming GWB for a letter request
that he probably didn't even see.
You don't think that maybe you are stepping a little over the edge?
-Chuck

Well, Chuck, the General he personally sent to read the letter was
quite red faced, so I would hazzard a guess that he DID KNOW ABOUT IT.

Unhuh. Well, when you know all the facts, do let us know. I have dealt with
a couple of generals in the course of my career, and I cannot imagine any of them
going into a situation like that without the letter, or a good back up.

-Chuck

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Michael A. Terrell
Then they should just close the White House and sell the land to help
pay down the national debt.

After Bush, that may be a possibility, although it seems it will
be part of a package deal trading the entire country to China
in return for our bonds.

--Blair
"There's a reason his approval rating
is now lower than Nixon's was at the
height of Watergate..."

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Chuck Harris
Seriously, do you have any idea of how many of these *little* speeches the
president is asked for? Each one is of "critical" importance to the group that
does the asking, of course.

Same attitude he had when not sending body armor along with
his sandbags - er, his troops.

--Blair
"Some things are indefensible."

[Chuck Harris]

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Chuck Harris
Seriously, do you have any idea of how many of these *little* speeches the
president is asked for? Each one is of "critical" importance to the group that
does the asking, of course.

Same attitude he had when not sending body armor along with
his sandbags - er, his troops.
--Blair
"Some things are indefensible."

Decisions like that don't even get 1/2 way to the Whitehouse. They
start and end in the Pentagon. The President has nothing to do with
deciding what equipment is needed by troops.

-Chuck

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Chuck Harris

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Chuck Harris
Seriously, do you have any idea of how many of these *little* speeches the
president is asked for? Each one is of "critical" importance to the

group that

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Chuck Harris
does the asking, of course.

Same attitude he had when not sending body armor along with
his sandbags - er, his troops.
"Some things are indefensible."

Decisions like that don't even get 1/2 way to the Whitehouse. They
start and end in the Pentagon. The President has nothing to do with
deciding what equipment is needed by troops.

The President is the Commander in Chief, and is also
responsible for budget requests.

When a glaring lack of essential materiel is exposed it's
the President's job to ensure that the lack is remediated.

It hasn't been. Reservists are still (as of a couple of
weeks ago) advised by their units to purchase their own
body armor before deploying.

Why has the Commander in Chief allowed his military to fight
his war without adequately supplying them with the equipment
needed to do so?

--Blair
"He doesn't care if you die, either."

[Michael A. Terrell]

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Chuck Harris

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Chuck Harris
Seriously, do you have any idea of how many of these *little* speeches the
president is asked for? Each one is of "critical" importance to the

group that

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Chuck Harris
does the asking, of course.

Same attitude he had when not sending body armor along with
his sandbags - er, his troops.
"Some things are indefensible."

Decisions like that don't even get 1/2 way to the Whitehouse. They
start and end in the Pentagon. The President has nothing to do with
deciding what equipment is needed by troops.

The President is the Commander in Chief, and is also
responsible for budget requests.
When a glaring lack of essential materiel is exposed it's
the President's job to ensure that the lack is remediated.
It hasn't been. Reservists are still (as of a couple of
weeks ago) advised by their units to purchase their own
body armor before deploying.
Why has the Commander in Chief allowed his military to fight
his war without adequately supplying them with the equipment
needed to do so?
--Blair
"He doesn't care if you die, either."

Simple answer? No one in his family is in the military, and at
risk. As always, those without enough money to buy their way out of
miltary service are sacrificed to satisfy the blood lust of those too
cowardly to fight the wars they start. If the leaders of all nations
involved had to be on the front line all through a war, how many wars
would we see?

[John Woodgate]

I read in alt.binaries.schematics.electronic that Michael A. Terrell

If the leaders of all nations involved had to be on the front line all
through a war, how many wars would we see?

Well, that WAS the case until about 1500 AD (very roughly). Many kings
and crown princes died on battlefields. And, very much later, Napoleon
was present at Waterloo and at some previous battles. It didn't do
anything to stop wars, obviously.

What it DID do was to put unwarlike national leaders (like Edward VI of
England and some, but not by any means all, of our Queens) at the mercy
of his/her own military.

In fact, these days, the 'front line' is wherever enemy weapons can
reach, and, for the enemies of USA, that is everywhere. Remember that
USA tried to take out Colonel Gadaffi.

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 02:28:40 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"

Post by Michael A. Terrell

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Chuck Harris

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Chuck Harris
Seriously, do you have any idea of how many of these *little* speeches the
president is asked for? Each one is of "critical" importance to the

group that

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Chuck Harris
does the asking, of course.

Same attitude he had when not sending body armor along with
his sandbags - er, his troops.
"Some things are indefensible."

Decisions like that don't even get 1/2 way to the Whitehouse. They
start and end in the Pentagon. The President has nothing to do with
deciding what equipment is needed by troops.

The President is the Commander in Chief, and is also
responsible for budget requests.
When a glaring lack of essential materiel is exposed it's
the President's job to ensure that the lack is remediated.
It hasn't been. Reservists are still (as of a couple of
weeks ago) advised by their units to purchase their own
body armor before deploying.
Why has the Commander in Chief allowed his military to fight
his war without adequately supplying them with the equipment
needed to do so?
--Blair
"He doesn't care if you die, either."

Simple answer? No one in his family is in the military, and at
risk. As always, those without enough money to buy their way out of
miltary service are sacrificed to satisfy the blood lust of those too
cowardly to fight the wars they start. If the leaders of all nations
involved had to be on the front line all through a war, how many wars
would we see?

Michael, We have an all-volunteer army. Why did they all join up?
Easy money? We'll never have to go to war?

...Jim Thompson

[Michael A. Terrell]

Post by Jim Thompson
Michael, We have an all-volunteer army. Why did they all join up?
Easy money? We'll never have to go to war?
...Jim Thompson

Okay Frency, I'll type this very, very slowly so you can try to
understand. We had a draft for generations. A lot of people were taken
away from their families and jobs to serve their country. Some died.
Others were maimed and still suffer every day. WW I, WWII, Korea, and
Vietnam were not all volunteer armies. Of course, I don't expect a
senile old frog like you to understand anything more than, "You going
step on that snail, or are you going to eat it"? I'll bet you still
have your first white flag hidden somewhere in your "Treasures".

To simplify, you are a sorry FUCKING idiot. You sound more like Bill
Sloman ever time you post you Republican crap. thank God you won't live
much longer, but if it was up to me I would love for you to have another
fifty years of life to be lived in sever pain, abject poverty and always
dependent on others for your every need. Even that is better than you
deserve.

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:14:03 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"

Post by Michael A. Terrell

Post by Jim Thompson
Michael, We have an all-volunteer army. Why did they all join up?
Easy money? We'll never have to go to war?
...Jim Thompson

Okay Frency, I'll type this very, very slowly so you can try to
understand. We had a draft for generations. A lot of people were taken
away from their families and jobs to serve their country. Some died.
Others were maimed and still suffer every day. WW I, WWII, Korea, and
Vietnam were not all volunteer armies. Of course, I don't expect a
senile old frog like you to understand anything more than, "You going
step on that snail, or are you going to eat it"? I'll bet you still
have your first white flag hidden somewhere in your "Treasures".
To simplify, you are a sorry FUCKING idiot. You sound more like Bill
Sloman ever time you post you Republican crap. thank God you won't live
much longer, but if it was up to me I would love for you to have another
fifty years of life to be lived in sever pain, abject poverty and always
dependent on others for your every need. Even that is better than you
deserve.

Gee, Michael, are you angry yet ?:-) PLONK!

...Jim Thompson

[Michael A. Terrell]

Post by Jim Thompson
Gee, Michael, are you angry yet ?:-) PLONK!
...Jim Thompson

Now that is almost funny. He wants to know if I'm angry, then
"Plonks" me. I guess you can handle a loosing argument. Oh, well! I
guess that he'll never know that I plan on living just long enough to
piss on his grave. that way at least one person will know where he was
buried :( he sure won't have a crowd at the funeral, unless they feel
the need to be sure that he's dead.

[Bob Monsen]

Post by Michael A. Terrell

Post by Jim Thompson
Gee, Michael, are you angry yet ?:-) PLONK!
...Jim Thompson

Now that is almost funny. He wants to know if I'm angry, then
"Plonks" me. I guess you can handle a loosing argument.

The fact that Bush doesn't give a f**k about the troops shouldn't be
news to you. He is too busy chopping wood and biking with Lance
Armstrong to attend their funerals, and we still have a hard time
getting adequate armor for them, despite the billions we've devoted to
this cause. A few words from Bush would make adequate armor a national
priority, and it would happen immediately. That in turn would decrease
the death rate, which could turn around the current downward trend in
those volunteering.

Why doesn't he do this? Why did he yammer away on Social Security while
our men and women were dying preventable deaths? I think the answer is
clear. He doesn't care, and never has.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Post by Bob Monsen

Post by Michael A. Terrell

Post by Jim Thompson
Gee, Michael, are you angry yet ?:-) PLONK!
...Jim Thompson

Now that is almost funny. He wants to know if I'm angry, then
"Plonks" me. I guess you can handle a loosing argument.

The fact that Bush doesn't give a f**k about the troops shouldn't be
news to you. He is too busy chopping wood and biking with Lance
Armstrong to attend their funerals, and we still have a hard time
getting adequate armor for them, despite the billions we've devoted to
this cause. A few words from Bush would make adequate armor a national
priority, and it would happen immediately. That in turn would decrease
the death rate, which could turn around the current downward trend in
those volunteering.
Why doesn't he do this? Why did he yammer away on Social Security while
our men and women were dying preventable deaths? I think the answer is
clear. He doesn't care, and never has.
--
Regards,
Bob Monsen
If a little knowledge is dangerous, where is the man who has
so much as to be out of danger?
Thomas Henry Huxley, 1877

I think we will still have troops involved in battles in that region
after he leaves office. The next Commander in Chief should recall him
to active duty and send him to fight in the mess he started with no
special privileges. If he dies in battle, who should care? Not Jim or
the other morons like him. After all, he did volunteer, didn't he? And
we did spend ungodly wads of cash to teach him to fly a plane, so we
should get a return on our investment.

As far a the Social Security issue we all know that Bush is a master
of misdirection just like his daddy, and his hero Reagan. Any issue you
can throw up to misdirect the attention from the real problems of the
day so you can help your friends screw the rest of the nation. He
wanted to get Bin Laden "Cause he tried to kill my daddy". Well, give
him an m-16, his share of the current body armor an put him on the
ground with other troops. Who knows, it might even turn into a modern
day "Shoot-out at the OK Corral" (To tie the thread back to the original
OT concept).

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Jim Thompson
Michael, We have an all-volunteer army. Why did they all join up?
Easy money?

Easier money, such as it is, than they could get almost anywhere else.

And they thought they'd be fighting for good causes.

They volunteered to defend us, not to satisfy the imperial
whims of a crackpot.

Some of them, though, are too stupid to see past their
initial jingoism, or too proud to admit they're being used.
They're the kind of fools every sergeant wants in his unit.
Intelligent footsoldiers are always a pain in the ass.
It's up to the rest of us to ensure their bravery isn't
wasted for the personal and political aggrandizement of
traitors.

Post by Jim Thompson
We'll never have to go to war?

When the shit finally hits the fan, Bush will draft anyone
of any age (and the rich will still have more access to
deferments than the poor). And the enemy he's breeding
in his illegal war doesn't care who's in uniform and
who's just sipping a latte' at Starbucks wondering why
the lee-bruls won't shut up about the lies and go along
with the pretzeldent.

--Blair
"Moral authority is a terrible
thing to waste."

[Charlie Edmondson]

Post by Michael A. Terrell

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Chuck Harris

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Chuck Harris
Seriously, do you have any idea of how many of these *little* speeches the
president is asked for? Each one is of "critical" importance to the

group that

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Chuck Harris
does the asking, of course.

Same attitude he had when not sending body armor along with
his sandbags - er, his troops.
"Some things are indefensible."

Decisions like that don't even get 1/2 way to the Whitehouse. They
start and end in the Pentagon. The President has nothing to do with
deciding what equipment is needed by troops.

The President is the Commander in Chief, and is also
responsible for budget requests.
When a glaring lack of essential materiel is exposed it's
the President's job to ensure that the lack is remediated.
It hasn't been. Reservists are still (as of a couple of
weeks ago) advised by their units to purchase their own
body armor before deploying.
Why has the Commander in Chief allowed his military to fight
his war without adequately supplying them with the equipment
needed to do so?
--Blair
"He doesn't care if you die, either."

Simple answer? No one in his family is in the military, and at
risk. As always, those without enough money to buy their way out of
miltary service are sacrificed to satisfy the blood lust of those too
cowardly to fight the wars they start. If the leaders of all nations
involved had to be on the front line all through a war, how many wars
would we see?

Want an even simplier answer? The budget comes from congress, and then
goes through more layers of bulls... ah beauracracy than you can
imagine. It wouldn't surprise me that there was money allocated for the
body armor, probably twice, but somehow never got to the point of
actualy SUPPLYING the body armor...

Charlie

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Charlie Edmondson
Want an even simplier answer? The budget comes from congress, and then
goes through more layers of bulls... ah beauracracy than you can
imagine. It wouldn't surprise me that there was money allocated for the
body armor, probably twice, but somehow never got to the point of
actualy SUPPLYING the body armor...

No, if that were the case, the issue wouldn't be on the President.

It was the White House that fucked up the appropriations request.

Screwed the soldiers and the veterans. And the kids who have to
grow up smart enough to direct a smart-bomb.

They're too busy with the politics of sophistry and misdirection
to do their damned job.

--Blair
"The dumber half of America is starting
to understand that."

[Richard Henry]

Post by Charlie Edmondson
Want an even simplier answer? The budget comes from congress, and then
goes through more layers of bulls... ah beauracracy than you can
imagine. It wouldn't surprise me that there was money allocated for the
body armor, probably twice, but somehow never got to the point of
actualy SUPPLYING the body armor...

Bullshit! He is Commander-in-Chief, and has full authority to redirect any
defense appropriation to the immediate, emergency acquisition of body and
Humvee armor. The only recourse Congress would have to such a blatantly
illegal act would be a bill of impeachment.

Now who would be the first Congressman to sign on to such a bill?

[Chuck Harris]

Post by Richard Henry

Post by Charlie Edmondson
Want an even simplier answer? The budget comes from congress, and then
goes through more layers of bulls... ah beauracracy than you can
imagine. It wouldn't surprise me that there was money allocated for the
body armor, probably twice, but somehow never got to the point of
actualy SUPPLYING the body armor...

Bullshit! He is Commander-in-Chief, and has full authority to redirect any
defense appropriation to the immediate, emergency acquisition of body and
Humvee armor. The only recourse Congress would have to such a blatantly
illegal act would be a bill of impeachment.
Now who would be the first Congressman to sign on to such a bill?

You guys are so wound up in your hatred for GWB that you refuse to listen
to the reality of what is going on. The body armor that you so fervently think
is being witheld from the GI's is *not*. There are special requirements for body
armor that is going to be exposed to rifle fire, shrapnel, and explosive
forces. The stuff that civilians can buy at their local doomsday supply isn't
suitable. It lacks the ceramic plates necessary to stop rifle fire, and can actually
increase the damage done to the wearer when exposed to the explosive effects
of a mine, or suicide belt. The armor that is suitable for battlefield use is in short
supply because the manufacturer screwed up. They made a whole boatload that
has been found to be defective (Ollie North's company). They are still struggling
to catch up with their orders, but their manufacturing capacity is woefully inadequate.

The platoon leaders are <<wrongfully>> recommending to their troups that they
should provide their own civilian bought armor. This stuff that they are buying
is only helpful if they are being shot at with 9mm pistol fire. It doesn't work for
AK47 fire at all! It makes them more vulnerable to the kind of explosive devices
that the insurgents are using over there.

Read this:

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/special_packages/iraq/12378085.htm

A simple google will find you plenty more *real* information on the subject.

-Chuck

[Chuck Harris]

Post by Chuck Harris

Post by Richard Henry

Post by Charlie Edmondson
Want an even simplier answer? The budget comes from congress, and then
goes through more layers of bulls... ah beauracracy than you can
imagine. It wouldn't surprise me that there was money allocated for the
body armor, probably twice, but somehow never got to the point of
actualy SUPPLYING the body armor...

Bullshit! He is Commander-in-Chief, and has full authority to redirect any
defense appropriation to the immediate, emergency acquisition of body and
Humvee armor. The only recourse Congress would have to such a blatantly
illegal act would be a bill of impeachment.
Now who would be the first Congressman to sign on to such a bill?

You guys are so wound up in your hatred for GWB that you refuse to listen
to the reality of what is going on. The body armor that you so fervently think
is being witheld from the GI's is *not*. There are special requirements for body
armor that is going to be exposed to rifle fire, shrapnel, and explosive
forces. The stuff that civilians can buy at their local doomsday supply isn't
suitable. It lacks the ceramic plates necessary to stop rifle fire, and can actually
increase the damage done to the wearer when exposed to the explosive effects
of a mine, or suicide belt. The armor that is suitable for battlefield use is in short
supply because the manufacturer screwed up. They made a whole boatload that
has been found to be defective (Ollie North's company). They are still struggling
to catch up with their orders, but their manufacturing capacity is woefully inadequate.
The platoon leaders are <<wrongfully>> recommending to their troups that they
should provide their own civilian bought armor. This stuff that they are buying
is only helpful if they are being shot at with 9mm pistol fire. It doesn't work for
AK47 fire at all! It makes them more vulnerable to the kind of explosive devices
that the insurgents are using over there.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/special_packages/iraq/12378085.htm
A simple google will find you plenty more *real* information on the subject.
-Chuck

Here's another:

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-832873.php

-Chuck

[Don]

Post by Chuck Harris

Post by Richard Henry

Post by Charlie Edmondson
Want an even simplier answer? The budget comes from congress, and
then goes through more layers of bulls... ah beauracracy than you can
imagine. It wouldn't surprise me that there was money allocated for
the body armor, probably twice, but somehow never got to the point of
actualy SUPPLYING the body armor...

Bullshit! He is Commander-in-Chief, and has full authority to
redirect any defense appropriation to the immediate, emergency
acquisition of body and Humvee armor. The only recourse Congress
would have to such a blatantly illegal act would be a bill of
impeachment.
Now who would be the first Congressman to sign on to such a bill?

You guys are so wound up in your hatred for GWB that you refuse to
listen to the reality of what is going on. The body armor that you so
fervently think is being witheld from the GI's is *not*. There are
special requirements for body armor that is going to be exposed to
rifle fire, shrapnel, and explosive forces. The stuff that civilians
can buy at their local doomsday supply isn't suitable. It lacks the
ceramic plates necessary to stop rifle fire, and can actually increase
the damage done to the wearer when exposed to the explosive effects
of a mine, or suicide belt. The armor that is suitable for
battlefield use is in short supply because the manufacturer screwed
up. They made a whole boatload that has been found to be defective
(Ollie North's company). They are still struggling to catch up with
their orders, but their manufacturing capacity is woefully inadequate.
The platoon leaders are <<wrongfully>> recommending to their troups
that they should provide their own civilian bought armor. This stuff
that they are buying is only helpful if they are being shot at with
9mm pistol fire. It doesn't work for AK47 fire at all! It makes them
more vulnerable to the kind of explosive devices that the insurgents
are using over there.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/special_packages/iraq/12

3

Post by Chuck Harris
78085.htm
A simple google will find you plenty more *real* information on the subject.
-Chuck

Maybe the contract shouldn't have been given to a convicted felon?

[Chuck Harris]

Post by Don

Post by Chuck Harris
A simple google will find you plenty more *real* information on the subject.
-Chuck

Maybe the contract shouldn't have been given to a convicted felon?

Great idea, then the contract would have gone to no one.

-Chuck

[Don]

Post by Charlie Edmondson

Post by Michael A. Terrell

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Chuck Harris

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Chuck Harris
Seriously, do you have any idea of how many of these *little*
speeches the president is asked for? Each one is of "critical"
importance to the

group that

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Chuck Harris
does the asking, of course.

Same attitude he had when not sending body armor along with
his sandbags - er, his troops.
"Some things are indefensible."

Decisions like that don't even get 1/2 way to the Whitehouse. They
start and end in the Pentagon. The President has nothing to do with
deciding what equipment is needed by troops.

The President is the Commander in Chief, and is also
responsible for budget requests.
When a glaring lack of essential materiel is exposed it's
the President's job to ensure that the lack is remediated.
It hasn't been. Reservists are still (as of a couple of
weeks ago) advised by their units to purchase their own
body armor before deploying.
Why has the Commander in Chief allowed his military to fight
his war without adequately supplying them with the equipment
needed to do so?
--Blair
"He doesn't care if you die,
either."

Simple answer? No one in his family is in the military, and at
risk. As always, those without enough money to buy their way out of
miltary service are sacrificed to satisfy the blood lust of those too
cowardly to fight the wars they start. If the leaders of all nations
involved had to be on the front line all through a war, how many wars
would we see?

Want an even simplier answer? The budget comes from congress, and
then goes through more layers of bulls... ah beauracracy than you can
imagine. It wouldn't surprise me that there was money allocated for
the body armor, probably twice, but somehow never got to the point of
actualy SUPPLYING the body armor...
Charlie

There's 8.9 billion dollars missing in Iraq.But Congress doesn't want to
investigate!

[Don]

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Chuck Harris

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Chuck Harris
Seriously, do you have any idea of how many of these *little*
speeches the president is asked for? Each one is of "critical"
importance to the

group that

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Chuck Harris
does the asking, of course.

Same attitude he had when not sending body armor along with
his sandbags - er, his troops.
"Some things are indefensible."

Decisions like that don't even get 1/2 way to the Whitehouse. They
start and end in the Pentagon. The President has nothing to do with
deciding what equipment is needed by troops.

The President is the Commander in Chief, and is also
responsible for budget requests.
When a glaring lack of essential materiel is exposed it's
the President's job to ensure that the lack is remediated.
It hasn't been. Reservists are still (as of a couple of
weeks ago) advised by their units to purchase their own
body armor before deploying.
Why has the Commander in Chief allowed his military to fight
his war without adequately supplying them with the equipment
needed to do so?
--Blair
"He doesn't care if you die, either."

Well, Bush doesn't read newspapers, how the hell is he supposed to know?

[Richard Henry]

Post by Chuck Harris

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Chuck Harris
Seriously, do you have any idea of how many of these *little* speeches the
president is asked for? Each one is of "critical" importance to the group that
does the asking, of course.

Same attitude he had when not sending body armor along with
his sandbags - er, his troops.
--Blair
"Some things are indefensible."

Decisions like that don't even get 1/2 way to the Whitehouse. They
start and end in the Pentagon. The President has nothing to do with
deciding what equipment is needed by troops.

As the Commander-in-Chief, the buck stops there.

[Chuck Harris]

Post by Richard Henry

Post by Chuck Harris

Post by Blair P. Houghton
Same attitude he had when not sending body armor along with
his sandbags - er, his troops.
--Blair
"Some things are indefensible."

Decisions like that don't even get 1/2 way to the Whitehouse. They
start and end in the Pentagon. The President has nothing to do with
deciding what equipment is needed by troops.

As the Commander-in-Chief, the buck stops there.

Suppose that the body armor, as tested by the military supply system was
deemed not suitable for use in combat conditions? That would stop the
DOD from buying and issueing it, but wouldn't necessarily stop the unit
commanders from recommending its use. They might also recommend
talc to prevent crotch rot... doesn't always work, but who knows, it might
help sometimes.

There was a big flap here in Washington just a little while back when it was
discovered that *all* of the body armor made by one of the major suppliers
wouldn't stop small arms fire. IIRC, it was the company that Ollie North
was associated with.

The regulation armor that will stop 223 rounds (ala M16) is loaded with
very heavy, and motion restricting ceramic plates in vital spots. Wearing
it feels alot like being a knight without a horse.

-Chuck

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Michael A. Terrell
He was suposed to write a letter that was to be read at the
re-dedication of the local Veterans park. He had months to do it, but
last Saturday morning (Aug, 20th, 2005) rolled around for the big event
after years of planning and hard work to raise the money, and it still
hadn't arrived.
I was there as a local Republican tried to make a joke out of it,
blaming the US post office, but there were a lot of pissed of Veterans.
I guess that his vacation in Crawford and meeting with Lance Armstrong
at his ranch were more important than his word to the 45,000+ veterans
of this county. At least the three other politicians who made promises
had the honor to deliver their letters, on time.

Classic Bush.

The boy's a juvenile delinquent gussied-up by political
fixers because he fit the suit.

It's tragic watching people redefine democracy to justify
the lies they're sucked into.

--Blair
"We can do better."

[James T. White]

Post by Michael A. Terrell
Did you hear about your fearless leader's latest insult to our
Veterans?

Hate to have to point this out but he is our fearless leader whether or not you
voted for him.

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by James T. White

Post by Michael A. Terrell
Did you hear about your fearless leader's latest insult to our
Veterans?

Hate to have to point this out but he is our fearless leader whether or not you
voted for him.

He's not fearless, he's not a leader, and you didn't hate that.

--Blair
"Sarcasm works all three ways."

[Robert Baer]

Post by Michael A. Terrell

Post by Jim Thompson
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:12:55 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"

Post by Michael A. Terrell

Post by Jim Thompson
This was sent to me by my daughter in Yuma.
Of course she just happens to be Republican Party Chairwoman for Yuma
County ;-)

Sorry to hear that. Better luck next time?

Yep. We're going to round up Democrats and send 'em back to Mexico
;-)

Its a good thing you have such a rich fanasy life.

...at least the Feds cannot tax it!

[TokaMundo]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:15:22 GMT, Robert Baer

Post by Robert Baer

Post by Michael A. Terrell

Post by Jim Thompson
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:12:55 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"

Post by Michael A. Terrell

Post by Jim Thompson
This was sent to me by my daughter in Yuma.
Of course she just happens to be Republican Party Chairwoman for Yuma
County ;-)

Sorry to hear that. Better luck next time?

Yep. We're going to round up Democrats and send 'em back to Mexico
;-)

Its a good thing you have such a rich fanasy life.

...at least the Feds cannot tax it!

If it were actually a word, they'd likely find a way to do just
that.

[TokaMundo]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:12:55 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"

Post by Michael A. Terrell

Post by Jim Thompson
This was sent to me by my daughter in Yuma.
Of course she just happens to be Republican Party Chairwoman for Yuma
County ;-)

Sorry to hear that. Better luck next time?

Hahahahahahahaaaaa...

[Richard Crowley]

"Jim Thompson" wrote ...

Post by Jim Thompson
OT: Great Movie Line from an Old Bob Hope Movie...
http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/Greatest_Movie_Line.wmv

I love it. Of course, if it were written today we know it would say the
opposite.

OTOH, in the immortal words of Will Rogers...
"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat! "

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Richard Crowley
"Jim Thompson" wrote ...

Post by Jim Thompson
OT: Great Movie Line from an Old Bob Hope Movie...
http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/Greatest_Movie_Line.wmv

I love it. Of course, if it were written today we know it would say the
opposite.
OTOH, in the immortal words of Will Rogers...
"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat! "

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that
unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my
country. As a result of the war, corporations have been
enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will
follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor
to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of
the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands,
and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more
anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before,
even in the midst of war."
-Abraham Lincoln

By the end of the 1880s, corporatists had taken over the GOP
entirely.

--Blair
"Booth was working for Bush."

[Don]

Post by Blair P. Houghton
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that
unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my
country. As a result of the war, corporations have been
enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will
follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor
to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of
the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands,
and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more
anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before,
even in the midst of war."
-Abraham Lincoln
By the end of the 1880s, corporatists had taken over the GOP
entirely.
--Blair
"Booth was working for Bush."

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties
or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an
alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the
huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful
methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As
we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government --
must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own
ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot
mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the
loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy
to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent
phantom of tomorrow.

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have
their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity
shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may
experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will
understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are
insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges
of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the
earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live
together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect
and love.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960

[Richard Crowley]

"Don" wrote ...

Post by Don
In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or
unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential
for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will
persist.

...

Post by Don
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960

And yet, he took full advantage of the military-industrial
complex to prevail in WW2. Go figure.

[Chuck Harris]

Post by Richard Crowley
"Don" wrote ...

Post by Don
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition
of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will
persist.

...

Post by Don
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960

And yet, he took full advantage of the military-industrial
complex to prevail in WW2. Go figure.

Eisenhower saw the military industrial complex become more and
more emboldened from their victory in WWII. He was enormously
frightened by what they were becoming. I don't see anything
incongruous in what he said. Why do you?

-Chuck

[John Woodgate]

I read in alt.binaries.schematics.electronic that Chuck Harris

Post by Chuck Harris

Post by Richard Crowley
"Don" wrote ...

Post by Don
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition
of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will
persist.

...

Post by Don
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960

And yet, he took full advantage of the military-industrial
complex to prevail in WW2. Go figure.

Eisenhower saw the military industrial complex become more and
more emboldened from their victory in WWII. He was enormously
frightened by what they were becoming. I don't see anything
incongruous in what he said. Why do you?

Remember that he needed to take that advantage because of the use by
Adolf of HIS M-I complex to so nearly prevail. Now we are experiencing
the result of trying to stop Saddam doing the same thing with HIS M-I
complex.

This precisely why there is so much concern over the M-I complex
activities in North Korea, and, to a lesser extent, Iran, India and
Pakistan.

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 00:36:23 -0400, the renowned Chuck Harris

Post by Chuck Harris

Post by Richard Crowley
"Don" wrote ...

Post by Don
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition
of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will
persist.

...

Post by Don
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960

And yet, he took full advantage of the military-industrial
complex to prevail in WW2. Go figure.

Eisenhower saw the military industrial complex become more and
more emboldened from their victory in WWII. He was enormously
frightened by what they were becoming. I don't see anything
incongruous in what he said. Why do you?
-Chuck

A bit like 'blowback'- he felt the military-industrial complex was
becoming (or had become) the master rather than the servant.

US military spending as a % of GDP

1940 1.7%
1950 5.0%
1960 9.3%


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

[John Woodgate]

I read in alt.binaries.schematics.electronic that Spehro Pefhany

Post by Spehro Pefhany
US military spending as a % of GDP
1940 1.7%
1950 5.0%
1960 9.3%

But that doesn't show the most interesting bits. For example, what the
1942 figure was, after Pearl Harbour. The 1960 figure reflects the Cold
War, and future generations may come to regard it in a very good light,
as the means by which we as a species safely crossed Technological
Annihilation Threshold 1 (see, for example, Arthur C Clarke, 'Second
Dawn').

The figures for the years around the Millennium, showing the effect of
the end of Communism would also be instructive.

[Chuck Harris]

Post by John Woodgate
I read in alt.binaries.schematics.electronic that Spehro Pefhany

Post by Spehro Pefhany
US military spending as a % of GDP
1940 1.7%
1950 5.0%
1960 9.3%

But that doesn't show the most interesting bits. For example, what the
1942 figure was, after Pearl Harbour. The 1960 figure reflects the Cold
War, and future generations may come to regard it in a very good light,
as the means by which we as a species safely crossed Technological
Annihilation Threshold 1 (see, for example, Arthur C Clarke, 'Second
Dawn').
The figures for the years around the Millennium, showing the effect of
the end of Communism would also be instructive.

Year Spending Year Spending
1945 962.7 1971 311.7
1946 500.6 1972 289.1
1947 133.7 1973 259.5
1948 94.7 1974 243.8
1949 127.8 1975 242.0
1950 133.0 1976 234.0
1951 225.7 1977 232.7
1952 408.5 1978 233.2
1953 437.0 1979 237.4
1954 402.1 1980 246.2
1955 344.5 1981 260.8
1956 320.7 1982 282.0
1957 322.4 1983 303.2
1958 317.9 1984 318.1
1959 306.9 1985 343.7
1960 289.6 1986 363.7
1961 291.1 1987 371.1
1962 300.0 1988 372.8
1963 293.3 1989 376.2
1964 294.8 1990 358.7
1965 268.3 1991 316.5
1966 297.3 1992 328.6
1967 354.1 1993 312.1
1968 388.9 1994 290.3
1969 371.8 1995 272.1
1970 346.0 1996 265.6 (est.)

Total cost of the Cold War (1948-1991) in 1996 dollars = $13.1 Trillion.

Average annual military spending during Cold War = $298.5 Billion.

Average annual military spending during peacetime Cold War (excluding Korean and Vietnam War years) = $285.4 Billion.

[Chuck Harris]

Post by John Woodgate
I read in alt.binaries.schematics.electronic that Spehro Pefhany

Post by Spehro Pefhany
US military spending as a % of GDP
1940 1.7%
1950 5.0%
1960 9.3%

But that doesn't show the most interesting bits. For example, what the
1942 figure was, after Pearl Harbour. The 1960 figure reflects the Cold
War, and future generations may come to regard it in a very good light,
as the means by which we as a species safely crossed Technological
Annihilation Threshold 1 (see, for example, Arthur C Clarke, 'Second
Dawn').
The figures for the years around the Millennium, showing the effect of
the end of Communism would also be instructive.

Fiscal Year Military spending as
percent of GDP
1940 1.7
1941 5.6
1942 17.8
1943 37.0
1944 37.8
1945 37.5
1946 19.2
1947 5.5
1948 3.5
1949 4.8
1950 5.0
1951 7.4
1952 13.2
1953 14.2
1954 13.1
1955 10.8
1956 10.0
1957 10.1
1958 10.2
1959 10.0
1960 9.3
1961 9.4
1962 9.2
1963 8.9
1964 8.5
1965 7.4
1966 7.7
1967 8.8
1968 9.4
1969 8.7
1970 8.1
1971 7.3
1972 6.7
1973 5.8
1974 5.5
1975 5.5
1976 5.2
1977 4.9
1978 4.7
1979 4.6
1980 4.9
1981 5.1
1982 5.7
1983 6.1
1984 5.9
1985 6.1
1986 6.2
1987 6.1
1988 5.8
1989 5.6
1990 5.2
1991 4.6
1992 4.8
1993 4.4
1994 4.0
1995 3.7
1996 3.5
1997 3.3
1998 3.1
1999 3.0
2000 3.0
2001 3.0
2002 3.4
2003 3.7

[John Woodgate]

I read in alt.binaries.schematics.electronic that Chuck Harris

Post by John Woodgate
I read in alt.binaries.schematics.electronic that Spehro Pefhany

Post by Spehro Pefhany
US military spending as a % of GDP
1940 1.7%
1950 5.0%
1960 9.3%

But that doesn't show the most interesting bits. For example, what
the 1942 figure was, after Pearl Harbour. The 1960 figure reflects
the Cold War, and future generations may come to regard it in a very
good light, as the means by which we as a species safely crossed
Technological Annihilation Threshold 1 (see, for example, Arthur C
Clarke, 'Second Dawn').
The figures for the years around the Millennium, showing the effect
of the end of Communism would also be instructive.

Fiscal Year Military spending aspercent of GDP

That's very interesting indeed. It doesn't suggest any enormous
malpractice by the M-IC. No doubt if all malpractice were eliminated,
the percentage would go down, but since the people making $1000 hammers
and $10 pencils etc. would be unemployed, the GDP would go down as well.

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:53:11 +0100, John Woodgate

Post by John Woodgate
I read in alt.binaries.schematics.electronic that Chuck Harris

Post by John Woodgate
I read in alt.binaries.schematics.electronic that Spehro Pefhany

Post by Spehro Pefhany
US military spending as a % of GDP
1940 1.7%
1950 5.0%
1960 9.3%

But that doesn't show the most interesting bits. For example, what
the 1942 figure was, after Pearl Harbour. The 1960 figure reflects
the Cold War, and future generations may come to regard it in a very
good light, as the means by which we as a species safely crossed
Technological Annihilation Threshold 1 (see, for example, Arthur C
Clarke, 'Second Dawn').
The figures for the years around the Millennium, showing the effect
of the end of Communism would also be instructive.

Fiscal Year Military spending aspercent of GDP

That's very interesting indeed. It doesn't suggest any enormous
malpractice by the M-IC. No doubt if all malpractice were eliminated,
the percentage would go down, but since the people making $1000 hammers
and $10 pencils etc. would be unemployed, the GDP would go down as well.

A few percent of GDP is peanuts to the US or most European
countries... it means the average person goes to restaurants, or buys
new luxury cars, a bit less often. It's excessive military spending in
poor countries that's the real tragedy. Even worse, all that expensive
military gear is more likely to be *used* in third-world countries,
compounding the misery.

The military-spending boost to GDP is about as useful as the old
formula of hiring a million guys to dig holes, and another million to
fill them up.


John

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 10:16:37 -0700, the renowned John Larkin

Post by John Larkin
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:53:11 +0100, John Woodgate
A few percent of GDP is peanuts to the US or most European
countries... it means the average person goes to restaurants, or buys
new luxury cars, a bit less often. It's excessive military spending in
poor countries that's the real tragedy.

So, are you in favor of granting third-world countries with shaky
credit government-backed loans to allow them to buy vast quantities of
first-world weapons?

Post by John Larkin
Even worse, all that expensive
military gear is more likely to be *used* in third-world countries,
compounding the misery.

The first world countries won't sell them stuff that it can't knock
out, practically guaranteeing no (voluntary) use against a first-world
foe.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:04:44 -0400, Spehro Pefhany

Post by Spehro Pefhany
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 10:16:37 -0700, the renowned John Larkin

Post by John Larkin
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:53:11 +0100, John Woodgate
A few percent of GDP is peanuts to the US or most European
countries... it means the average person goes to restaurants, or buys
new luxury cars, a bit less often. It's excessive military spending in
poor countries that's the real tragedy.

So, are you in favor of granting third-world countries with shaky
credit government-backed loans to allow them to buy vast quantities of
first-world weapons?

Really, Spehro...

Post by Spehro Pefhany

Post by John Larkin
Even worse, all that expensive
military gear is more likely to be *used* in third-world countries,
compounding the misery.

The first world countries won't sell them stuff that it can't knock
out, practically guaranteeing no (voluntary) use against a first-world
foe.

Yup. They can only use it on other dark-skinned folk.

John

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:00:04 -0700, the renowned John Larkin

Post by John Larkin
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:04:44 -0400, Spehro Pefhany

Post by Spehro Pefhany
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 10:16:37 -0700, the renowned John Larkin

Post by John Larkin
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:53:11 +0100, John Woodgate
A few percent of GDP is peanuts to the US or most European
countries... it means the average person goes to restaurants, or buys
new luxury cars, a bit less often. It's excessive military spending in
poor countries that's the real tragedy.

So, are you in favor of granting third-world countries with shaky
credit government-backed loans to allow them to buy vast quantities of
first-world weapons?

Really, Spehro...

Sounds like you didn't agree with Clinton's re-institution of such
loans. ;-)



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

[John Woodgate]

I read in alt.binaries.schematics.electronic that John Larkin

Post by John Larkin
The military-spending boost to GDP is about as useful as the old
formula of hiring a million guys to dig holes,

the infantry....

Post by John Larkin
and another million to fill them up.

... the Medical Corps.

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:53:11 +0100, the renowned John Woodgate

Post by John Woodgate
I read in alt.binaries.schematics.electronic that Chuck Harris

Post by John Woodgate
I read in alt.binaries.schematics.electronic that Spehro Pefhany

Post by Spehro Pefhany
US military spending as a % of GDP
1940 1.7%
1950 5.0%
1960 9.3%

But that doesn't show the most interesting bits. For example, what
the 1942 figure was, after Pearl Harbour. The 1960 figure reflects
the Cold War, and future generations may come to regard it in a very
good light, as the means by which we as a species safely crossed
Technological Annihilation Threshold 1 (see, for example, Arthur C
Clarke, 'Second Dawn').
The figures for the years around the Millennium, showing the effect
of the end of Communism would also be instructive.

Fiscal Year Military spending aspercent of GDP

That's very interesting indeed. It doesn't suggest any enormous
malpractice by the M-IC. No doubt if all malpractice were eliminated,
the percentage would go down, but since the people making $1000 hammers
and $10 pencils etc. would be unemployed, the GDP would go down as well.

Some have read the 1960 'warning' as relating to some kind of evil
conspirational relationship between the military and industry, but I
read both the statement and the history as the results of normal
organizational behavior given their available resources, constraints,
history and the demands made of them.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Spehro Pefhany

Post by Spehro Pefhany
Some have read the 1960 'warning' as relating to some kind of evil
conspirational relationship between the military and industry, but I
read both the statement and the history as the results of normal
organizational behavior given their available resources, constraints,
history and the demands made of them.

Ike was speaking while the huge percentages of 1942-46 were prominent in
his mind. It may be that his warning was precisely what prevented those
levels being perpetuated. A case of a self-unfulfilling prophecy being a
Good Thing!

I wonder what the percentages were for Germany from 1930 to 1939.

[Richard Henry]

Post by Richard Crowley
"Don" wrote ...

Post by Don
In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or
unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential
for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will
persist.

...

Post by Don
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960

And yet, he took full advantage of the military-industrial
complex to prevail in WW2. Go figure.

At a time when our government policies were the most "socialist" ever. Go
figure.

[John Larkin]

Post by Richard Henry

Post by Richard Crowley
"Don" wrote ...

Post by Don
In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or
unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential
for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will
persist.

...

Post by Don
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960

And yet, he took full advantage of the military-industrial
complex to prevail in WW2. Go figure.

At a time when our government policies were the most "socialist" ever. Go
figure.

Of course. It's usually "liberal" governments that get us into wars.

John

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Don
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties
or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an
alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the
huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful
methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As
we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government --
must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own
ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot
mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the
loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy
to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent
phantom of tomorrow.
We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have
their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity
shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may
experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will
understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are
insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges
of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the
earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live
together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect
and love.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960

It's been proved over and over again that you can't shame
right-wingers by showing how craven and corrupt and ironic
their party has become.

Their descent into corporatist treason was predicted by
Abraham Lincoln.

--Blair
"Time to repeat the Revolution and
either deport or kill them all."

[Jim Thompson]

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Don
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties
or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an
alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the
huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful
methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As
we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government --
must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own
ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot
mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the
loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy
to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent
phantom of tomorrow.
We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have
their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity
shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may
experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will
understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are
insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges
of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the
earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live
together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect
and love.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960

It's been proved over and over again that you can't shame
right-wingers by showing how craven and corrupt and ironic
their party has become.
Their descent into corporatist treason was predicted by
Abraham Lincoln.
--Blair
"Time to repeat the Revolution and
either deport or kill them all."

The Democrat party ISN'T "craven and corrupt"?

Give a listen, as I do, to Air America, everyday from 10AM until
4PM... UNREAL how craven and corrupt and IGNORANT lefties are.

...Jim Thompson

[Chuck Harris]

Post by Jim Thompson
The Democrat party ISN'T "craven and corrupt"?
Give a listen, as I do, to Air America, everyday from 10AM until
4PM... UNREAL how craven and corrupt and IGNORANT lefties are.
...Jim Thompson

Did you notice how quiet things got on the bullet proof vest issue?

On another note, I found this somewhere:
----------------------------------------------------------------
The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English
will be the official language of
the European Union rather than German, which was the other possibility.

As part of the negotiations, the British Government conceded that
English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5-
year phase-in plan that would become known as "Euro-English".

In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will
make the sivil servants jump with joy.

The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of "k". This should klear up
konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the
troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like
fotograf 20% shorter.

In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted
to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible.

Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters which have
always ben a deterent to akurate
speling.

Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent "e" in the languag
is disgrasful and it should go away.

By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th"
with "z" and "w" with "v".

During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining
"ou" and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensibl riten styl.

Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu
understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil finali kum tru.

Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted in ze
forst plas.
-------------------------------------------

-Chuck

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 10:26:58 -0400, Chuck Harris

Post by Chuck Harris

Post by Jim Thompson
The Democrat party ISN'T "craven and corrupt"?
Give a listen, as I do, to Air America, everyday from 10AM until
4PM... UNREAL how craven and corrupt and IGNORANT lefties are.
...Jim Thompson

Did you notice how quiet things got on the bullet proof vest issue?
----------------------------------------------------------------
The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English
will be the official language of
the European Union rather than German, which was the other possibility.
As part of the negotiations, the British Government conceded that
English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5-
year phase-in plan that would become known as "Euro-English".
In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will
make the sivil servants jump with joy.
The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of "k". This should klear up
konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter.
There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the
troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like
fotograf 20% shorter.
In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted
to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible.
Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters which have
always ben a deterent to akurate
speling.
Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent "e" in the languag
is disgrasful and it should go away.
By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th"
with "z" and "w" with "v".
During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining
"ou" and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensibl riten styl.
Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu
understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil finali kum tru.
Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted in ze
forst plas.
-------------------------------------------
-Chuck

VERY GOOD! ROTFLMAO!

...Jim Thompson

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by Blair P. Houghton
It's been proved over and over again that you can't shame
right-wingers by showing how craven and corrupt and ironic
their party has become.
Their descent into corporatist treason was predicted by
Abraham Lincoln.

The Democrat party ISN'T "craven and corrupt"?

In what way are the democrats nearly as corrupt as the republicans?

Honestly.

I'm not talking about the customary home-state pork that
every politician panders to.

I'm talking about starting entire wars to give work-fare
to Halliburton. Bragging that a gathering of billionaires
is your "base". Committing treason in lieu of political ad
hominem. Hacking up the tax code and equity regulation to
pay off Wall Street at the expense of individual investors,
then hiring the criminal who did it to be the chairman
of the SEC. Spending $70 million to impotently impeach a
good President while ignoring the phenomenal incompetence
and criminality of a stupid one. Constantly promoting
failed and discredited functionaries to positions of power
as though their abuse of power was a rite of passage.
Suborning perjury, torture, and billion-dollar graft.

The worst that can be said about the chairman of the
DNC is that he's a dork. The best that can be said
about the chairman of the RNC is that he's an unindicted
co-conspirator.

In terms of actual corruption, the Republican Party is the
archetype and the Democratic Party isn't even in the same
building.

Post by Jim Thompson
Give a listen, as I do, to Air America, everyday from 10AM until
4PM... UNREAL how craven and corrupt and IGNORANT lefties are.

What I hear on there is the opposite of ignorance.
It's the opposite of the deliberate lies told on the
Limbaugh show. It's the opposite of the arch propaganda
spewed by Fox News (a network conceived and run entirely by
apparatchiks from Republican presidential administrations).

You're a very well-blinded little sheep, Jimbo.

--Blair
"There's a wolf in the woods. Woo-oo-ooo."

[John Larkin]

Post by Blair P. Houghton
It's been proved over and over again that you can't shame
right-wingers by showing how craven and corrupt and ironic
their party has become.
Their descent into corporatist treason was predicted by
Abraham Lincoln.
--Blair
"Time to repeat the Revolution and
either deport or kill them all."

What do you mean by "corporatist treason"? Corporations produce the
food, products, jobs, medicine, housing, education, and energy that
make civilization possible. Are you nostalgic for a short, mean life
of subsistance farming?

At least most of your interaction with corporations is voluntary, and
you usually have a choice of who to work for and who to buy from.
Government allows you no such choices.

Why the enthusiasm for killing?

John

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by John Larkin

Post by Blair P. Houghton
It's been proved over and over again that you can't shame
right-wingers by showing how craven and corrupt and ironic
their party has become.
Their descent into corporatist treason was predicted by
Abraham Lincoln.
"Time to repeat the Revolution and
either deport or kill them all."

What do you mean by "corporatist treason"? Corporations produce

False. *People* produce everything.

Corporations suck profits off the top of the productivity
of people. And lie to them to improve that effect. And lie
to the public to subvert democracy to create legal climates
that improve that effect. And then ship the good jobs overseas
because the wogs are easier to cow than the locals.

Meanwhile, they screw their common-stock investors in
myriad ways while paying their principals more than
they're worth.

Post by John Larkin
Are you nostalgic for a short, mean life
of subsistance farming?

Reductio ad absurdum; fallacy of the excluded middle. There's
a wide gulf of possibilities between subsistence farming and the
current corrupt system we're living under.

Post by John Larkin
At least most of your interaction with corporations is voluntary, and
you usually have a choice of who to work for and who to buy from.

But because of laws passed by corporatists, you don't have
a choice to be unionized at some companies.

Post by John Larkin
Government allows you no such choices.

Democratic government allows you to vote for new managers
every few years. What corporation does?

(Corporations work to misinform you so you'll chose the managers
*they* want.)

Post by John Larkin
Why the enthusiasm for killing?

Just feeling like a real Revolutionary.

--Blair
"Does the phrase '1776' scare you?"