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

Dave Head wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:20:44 GMT, bill > wrote:
>
>> Jean H. wrote:
>>>> Most of the GMOs that I have read about are modified to withstand a
>>>> particular plant disease or to survive long periods without water, or
>>>> something like that. There is a need or some foods might not be
>>>> available at all.
>>> hum, indeed a lot of them are made resistent to pesticides (not to the
>>> insects!)... the first one in my mind is the Round Up Ready corn by
>>> Monsanto..
>>>
>>>> Bush is the biggest enemy of research right now, since that fool
>>>> thinks stem cell research is immoral. Good thing that after November
>>>> he will be a real "Lame duck". Worst president in my lifetime, except
>>>> maybe Truman.
>>>> Bill Baka
>>> agreed! ... isnt' he the biggest enemy of almost everything?
>> He seems to be even this countries worst enemy. I don't know how he
>> could have gotten re-elected, much less by such a big margin, after 4
>> years of screwing up, unless the Republicans are either
>> A. Totally stupid.
>> B. The party is so corrupt that they fixed the election.
>>
>> I am just not believing that Kerry lost so badly since everyone I know
>> voted for him. How did the coward win over the guy who actually served?
>>
>> Bill Baka
>
> Its easy to understand... at the time, the Dems were still into collecting up
> all the guns, and in spite of how that is not a popular issue with you and your
> friends, in a whole lot of the rest of the country, people cherish their 2nd
> amemdment rights, and in fact all their rights. While California, New York,
> and a lof of the coastal states would like to forget the 2nd amendment, the
> rest of the country, those vast seas of red states, believe that without our
> guns, the liberals would do just as they please, and negate even more of the
> bill of right.
>
> Now, I understand that the Dems have given up on the idea of collecting up all
> the guns. Maybe they'll actually get somewhere in the polls this time. But, in
> any close election, the NRA will kill you if you are not pro-gun (notice that
> doesn't mean simply not anti-gun, but actually _for_ 2nd amendment rights). It
> doesn't matter to the NRA whether you're Dem or Rep, you get an endorsement
> from them if you support gun right. Then I vote for that person. And several
> million other NRA members do the same. And that's how they win the election.
>
> Dave Head

I agree with you on the gun thing since I have a purchased legally and
now illegal semi-automatic and if they think I am just going to walk in
and give them my gun they are nuts. Anybody who demands MY gun is likely
to be looking down the barrel. I'm with you and the NRA on the gun
thing, but just like the stupid abortion arguments, I can't base an
election on only one issue. I'm pro-choice and pro-gun but anti Bush and
most of the current administration. If we had some 'better' Republicans
to choose from I would vote for them. I am voting for Arnold for a
second term as California's governor, both because I like him and
because his Democrat opponent looks kind of sleazy. On the rest it is a
split ticket, basically voting for the younger blood and the least
stupid as I have mentioned before. Voting a straight ticket to me is the
dumbest thing a voter can do, by not checking out each candidate. Like
the Democrats, for instance, sometimes you get a Kennedy, and sometimes
you get a Gore and a Kerry. Sometimes the Republicans get a Nixon.
It's all a game of chance, but I do think there should be an age limit
of about 75 for anybody. We have Senators and Congressmen who can barely
remember where they work, yet they keep getting elected.
And there should definitely be a minimum I.Q. standard for anyone who
wants to be president, about 120 to cull the chaff.
Bill Baka

Dave Head wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:02:59 -0500, Tim McNamara > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Dave Head > wrote:
>>
>>> Its easy to understand... at the time, the Dems were still into
>>> collecting up all the guns, and in spite of how that is not a popular
>>> issue with you and your friends,
>> Which is a crock of ****. You're just telling a lie here.
>
> Not by a long shot. They were never openly pursuing that, because to say it
> even they knew was poison. So, they held that view, and worked toward that
> goal, but were damn transparent to the rest of us.
>
> For instance, what is gun registration good for? Not tracking guns. Its good
> for knowing where the guns are, and then declaring them to be illegal and
> expecting people to turn them in. Happened in California with the assault
> weapon ban out there (the people, BTW, mostly didn't turn them in - there's
> hundreds of thousands of now-illegal "assault" weapons in California society.)

Heh, tell me about it. Mine stays put. I might need it some day.
>
> What else is gun registration good for? If you get 'em all registered, then
> you institute a tax on gun ownership, and just keep raising it and raising it
> until only the wealthly and elite have the wherewithall to keep guns. That's
> what the liberal elite is aiming at.
>
> Nts not a crock, its the truth. The liberal Dems were just smart enough not to
> say it. Their supporters said it at times, and the occasional politician said
> it - it was one of the California Dems, in fact, that said, "If it were up to
> me, if I had the power, I'd say, "Turn 'em all in, Mr. and Mrs America" ".
>
> The liberal Dems _were_ most assuredly working toward an eventual confiscation
> of _all_ the American citizens guns. That's a fact.
>
>>> in a whole lot of the rest of the country, people cherish their 2nd
>>> amemdment rights, and in fact all their rights. While California,
>>> New York, and a lof of the coastal states would like to forget the
>>> 2nd amendment, the rest of the country, those vast seas of red
>>> states, believe that without our guns, the liberals would do just as
>>> they please, and negate even more of the bill of right.
>> LOL. What crack you been smoking, dude? It's the Republicans that are
>> tossing your rights into the trash, not the Democrats.
>
> True and not true. Its both. My particular pet amendment is the 2nd. You
> pick one and vote on that. I don't care. The SOB's have to be stopped when
> they F with the constitution and specifically its bill of rights.

Bush would like to mess with the constitution, not on guns, but other
things, so why not bitch about 'junk' amendments? Ever since 9/11 I have
found excessive police presence. When I turned 55 I went to the local
Social Security office just to see if I was eligible for anything, since
I have paid a ton of income tax and SS tax, and I was met at the door by
a retired cop with a metal detector wand. I said "What the F..k is
this?" and he said he was hired after 9/11 to prevent a possible
terrorist occurrence in the office. A Social Security office?
Get real, there are 3 employees and no money and there were 4 gray
haired people all over 70 just sitting there. Bush is getting ridiculous
with the over policing of the country. As people on r.b.misc know, I was
detained just for riding my bicycle on a public road too close to an Air
Force base and looking suspicious. I am a totally white third generation
American and no way do I look the least bit arabic, yet I was held until
a county sheriff could come and load me and my bike for a quick ride
back home. Bush may not be anti-gun but he sure as hell wants to take
our freedoms away. I am more worried about being hassled by the Homeland
Security people than being killed by a terrorist these days.
Bill Baka
>
>> The Republicans
>> are outstandingly good liars, though, I'll give them credit for that.
>
> Not a patch on gun-grabbing liberal democrats, tho.
>
>> As the old saying goes, all political parties die at last from
>> swallowing their own lies. It's currently the Republicans' turn.
>
> Republican party is not going to die. For that to happen, there would have to
> be a credible replacement around somewhere. There isn't. Going to vote for
> libertarians? Didn't think so. Nothing else appears to be standing around as
> a viable replacement.
>

Jean H. wrote:
>> Where did they come up with 272 nations? The last I heard it was 201
>> or something like that. When I was in grade school I think it was only
>> about 104 or something close. Is somebody minting new countries?
>> Bill Baka
>
> 1) a nation is not a country... think of the First Nations, Quebecers etc.
> 2) There are many more coutries than that, most of them are not
> recognized... the weirdest country being this offshore oil platform
> close to britain!
>
> Jean
> ------------------------
> http://geography.about.com/cs/countr...wcountries.htm
> New Countries of the World
> From Matt Rosenberg,
> Your Guide to Geography.
>
> Jan 2 2006
> The 30 New Countries Created Since 1990
> Since 1990, thirty new countries have been created. The dissolution of
> the USSR and Yugoslavia in the early 1990s caused the creation of most
> of the newly independent states.
> You probably know about many of these changes but a few of these new
> countries seemed to slip by almost unnoticed. This comprehensive listing
> will update you about the countries which have formed since 1990.
>
> Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
>
> Fifteen new countries became independent with the dissolution of the
> USSR in 1991. Three of these countries declared and were granted
> independence a few months preceding the fall of the Soviet Union but the
> remaining twelve did not become independent until the Soviet Union fell
> completely on December 26, 1991.

I was under the impression, apparently wrong, that those counted as
countries, but under the umbrella of the USSR.
>
>
> Armenia
> Azerbaijan
> Belarus
> Estonia (September 1991)
> Georgia
> Kazakhstan
> Kyrgyzstan
> Latvia (September 1991)
> Lithuania (September 1991)
> Moldova
> Russia
> Tajikistan
> Turkmenistan
> Ukraine
> Uzbekistan
> Former Yugoslavia
> Yugoslavia dissolved in the early 1990s into five independent countries.
>
> Bosnia and Herzegovina, February 29, 1992
> Croatia, June 25, 1991
> Macedonia (officially The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)
> declared independence on September 8, 1991 but wasn't recognized by the
> United Nations until 1993 and the United States and Russia in February
> of 1994
> Serbia and Montenegro, (also known as the Federal Republic of
> Yugoslavia), April 17, 1992
> Slovenia, June 25, 1991

These were the ones I knew about due to all the press coverage of them
warring on each other. They got rid of the USSR and went right into
"Ethnic cleansing" mode. Some people are never happy.

> Other New Countries
>
> Nine other countries became independent through a variety of causes.
>
>
> March 21, 1990 - Namibia became independent of South Africa
>
> May 22, 1990 - North and South Yemen merged to form a unified Yemen
>
> October 3, 1990 - East Germany and West Germany merged to form a unified
> Germany after the fall of the Iron Curtain
>
> September 17, 1991 - The Marshall Islands was part of the Trust
> Territory of Pacific Islands (administered by the United States) and
> gained independence as a former colony
>
> September 17, 1991 - Micronesia, previously known as the Caroline
> Islands, became independent from the United States
>
> January 1, 1993 - The Czech Republic and Slovakia became independent
> nations when Czechoslovakia dissolved
>
> May 25, 1993 - Eritrea was a part of Ethiopia but seceded and gained
> independence
>
> October 1, 1994 - Palau was part of the Trust Territory of Pacific
> Islands (administered by the United States) and gained independence as a
> former colony
>
> May 20, 2002 - East Timor declared independence from Portugal in 1975
> but became independent of Indonesia in 2002

Most of these I have heard about but never really added them all up. One
or two of the minor ones per year can slip by without being noticed.
Most are insignificant anyway, and since I am not a politician, not in
my interest to be on top of them all, but it is an interesting trend
that everyone, even a two bit island, wants to be a country.
Bill Baka

Lorenzo L. Love wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:07:54 -0700, bill > wrote:
>
>> Lorenzo L. Love wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 04:12:15 -0700, george conklin >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Lorenzo L. Love" > wrote in message
>>>> newsp.tg8lacqipheghf@ibm22761843607...
>>>>>
>>>>> What is it about "gradually increasing fertility rates" that you do
>>>>> not
>>>>> understand?
>>>>
>>>> What YOU do not understand is that the future growth of
>>>> populations is
>>>> measured by the Total Fertility Rates, or TFRs. These are
>>>> calculated by the
>>>> census for nations and they say that 63 nations are no longer
>>>> reproducing
>>>> themselves. I suggest you check out the population pyramid projections
>>>> which the census makes available, both for the USA and most other
>>>> nations of
>>>> the world. Stop simply guessing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No guessing needed. The U.S. has a population growth rate of +0.91%.
>>> Australia +0.85%, France +0.35%, United Kingdom +0.28%, Italy +0.04%,
>>> Japan +0.02%. This info is from the wild and crazy guys at the C.I.A.
>>> By the way, the C.I.A. says there are 272 nations which much mean
>>> there are 209 nations are reproducing themselves. And then some as
>>> the world population growth rate is +1.14% with a birth rate of 20.05
>>> births/1,000 population and a death rate of 8.67 deaths/1,000
>>> population. Whole lot of reproducing going on. The counties that have
>>> negative growth rates are for the most part either tiny or not
>>> something anyone would inspire to. Like Russia which has a population
>>> growth rate of -0.37% but also an infant mortality two and half times
>>> that of the U.S. and a life expectancy ten years less. Is Russia your
>>> ideal for the future of the world?
>>> Lorenzo L. Love
>>> http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
>>> "...democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot
>>> survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put
>>> more and more people into the world, the value of life not only
>>> declines, it disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies. The more
>>> people there are, the less one individual matters."
>>> Isaac Asimov
>> Where did they come up with 272 nations? The last I heard it was 201
>> or something like that. When I was in grade school I think it was only
>> about 104 or something close. Is somebody minting new countries?
>> Bill Baka
>
> Since you missed it, I'll repeat "the C.I.A. says there are 272
> nations". That was as of 5 October, 2006. There may be more by now.

I didn't miss it, that was why I posted to ask. "The C.I.A. says" may
just be all I want to know.
Bill Baka
>
> Lorenzo L. Love
> http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
>
> "We are living beyond our means. As a people we have developed a
> life-style that is draining the earth of its priceless and irreplaceable
> resources without regard for the future of our children and people all
> around the world."
> Margaret Mead

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:22:09 GMT, bill > wrote:

>Dave Head wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:02:59 -0500, Tim McNamara > wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Dave Head > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Its easy to understand... at the time, the Dems were still into
>>>> collecting up all the guns, and in spite of how that is not a popular
>>>> issue with you and your friends,
>>> Which is a crock of ****. You're just telling a lie here.
>>
>> Not by a long shot. They were never openly pursuing that, because to say it
>> even they knew was poison. So, they held that view, and worked toward that
>> goal, but were damn transparent to the rest of us.
>>
>> For instance, what is gun registration good for? Not tracking guns. Its good
>> for knowing where the guns are, and then declaring them to be illegal and
>> expecting people to turn them in. Happened in California with the assault
>> weapon ban out there (the people, BTW, mostly didn't turn them in - there's
>> hundreds of thousands of now-illegal "assault" weapons in California society.)
>
>Heh, tell me about it. Mine stays put. I might need it some day.

Yeppir, that's the spirit.
>>
>> What else is gun registration good for? If you get 'em all registered, then
>> you institute a tax on gun ownership, and just keep raising it and raising it
>> until only the wealthly and elite have the wherewithall to keep guns. That's
>> what the liberal elite is aiming at.
>>
>> Nts not a crock, its the truth. The liberal Dems were just smart enough not to
>> say it. Their supporters said it at times, and the occasional politician said
>> it - it was one of the California Dems, in fact, that said, "If it were up to
>> me, if I had the power, I'd say, "Turn 'em all in, Mr. and Mrs America" ".
>>
>> The liberal Dems _were_ most assuredly working toward an eventual confiscation
>> of _all_ the American citizens guns. That's a fact.
>>
>>>> in a whole lot of the rest of the country, people cherish their 2nd
>>>> amemdment rights, and in fact all their rights. While California,
>>>> New York, and a lof of the coastal states would like to forget the
>>>> 2nd amendment, the rest of the country, those vast seas of red
>>>> states, believe that without our guns, the liberals would do just as
>>>> they please, and negate even more of the bill of right.
>>> LOL. What crack you been smoking, dude? It's the Republicans that are
>>> tossing your rights into the trash, not the Democrats.
>>
>> True and not true. Its both. My particular pet amendment is the 2nd. You
>> pick one and vote on that. I don't care. The SOB's have to be stopped when
>> they F with the constitution and specifically its bill of rights.
>
>Bush would like to mess with the constitution, not on guns, but other
>things, so why not bitch about 'junk' amendments? Ever since 9/11 I have
>found excessive police presence. When I turned 55 I went to the local
>Social Security office just to see if I was eligible for anything, since
>I have paid a ton of income tax and SS tax, and I was met at the door by
>a retired cop with a metal detector wand. I said "What the F..k is
>this?" and he said he was hired after 9/11 to prevent a possible
>terrorist occurrence in the office. A Social Security office?
>Get real, there are 3 employees and no money and there were 4 gray
>haired people all over 70 just sitting there. Bush is getting ridiculous
>with the over policing of the country. As people on r.b.misc know, I was
>detained just for riding my bicycle on a public road too close to an Air
>Force base and looking suspicious. I am a totally white third generation
>American and no way do I look the least bit arabic, yet I was held until
>a county sheriff could come and load me and my bike for a quick ride
>back home. Bush may not be anti-gun but he sure as hell wants to take
>our freedoms away. I am more worried about being hassled by the Homeland
>Security people than being killed by a terrorist these days.
>Bill Baka

And if more people went forth armed, there wouldn't be such a need for the
hired armed people. Its weird - so many people are against personal carrying
of handguns, but hire some schmuck for minimum wage, give him clothes that are
all 1 color and shiny black shoes, and then he's good to go for standing in
school hallways with a gun. He's probably not half as qualified to deal with
an armed intruder as the teachers would be if they had guns on them.

The teachers should all have the _right_ to carry, with a minimum of
regulations - must have personal carry permit, must have the required training
for having a personal carry permit, and, while at school, absolutely must
_wear_ the gun - no sticking it in a briefcase, no putting it in a purse,
nowhere except somewhere on the body - and NO revealing its presence to
_anyone_. NO ONE should know who is carrying - not the principal, not the
other teachers, and sure as hell not the kids. The only time anyone finds out
is when they have a sudden sucking chest wound.

I imagine the 3 70-yr-old ladies might have requested the guard 'cuz they felt
fairly "naked" and alone. They really only needed some friends - Mr. Smith and
Mr. Wesson, or maybe Sam Colt.

Dave Head

>>
>>> The Republicans
>>> are outstandingly good liars, though, I'll give them credit for that.
>>
>> Not a patch on gun-grabbing liberal democrats, tho.
>>
>>> As the old saying goes, all political parties die at last from
>>> swallowing their own lies. It's currently the Republicans' turn.
>>
>> Republican party is not going to die. For that to happen, there would have to
>> be a credible replacement around somewhere. There isn't. Going to vote for
>> libertarians? Didn't think so. Nothing else appears to be standing around as
>> a viable replacement.
>>

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:21:11 -0700, (Tom Keats) wrote:

>In article >,
> Dave Head > writes:
>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:20:44 GMT, bill > wrote:
>>
>>>Jean H. wrote:
>>>>> Most of the GMOs that I have read about are modified to withstand a
>>>>> particular plant disease or to survive long periods without water, or
>>>>> something like that. There is a need or some foods might not be
>>>>> available at all.
>>>>
>>>> hum, indeed a lot of them are made resistent to pesticides (not to the
>>>> insects!)... the first one in my mind is the Round Up Ready corn by
>>>> Monsanto..
>>>>
>>>>> Bush is the biggest enemy of research right now, since that fool
>>>>> thinks stem cell research is immoral. Good thing that after November
>>>>> he will be a real "Lame duck". Worst president in my lifetime, except
>>>>> maybe Truman.
>>>>> Bill Baka
>>>>
>>>> agreed! ... isnt' he the biggest enemy of almost everything?
>>>
>>>He seems to be even this countries worst enemy. I don't know how he
>>>could have gotten re-elected, much less by such a big margin, after 4
>>>years of screwing up, unless the Republicans are either
>>>A. Totally stupid.
>>>B. The party is so corrupt that they fixed the election.
>>>
>>>I am just not believing that Kerry lost so badly since everyone I know
>>>voted for him. How did the coward win over the guy who actually served?
>>>
>>>Bill Baka
>>
>> Its easy to understand... at the time, the Dems were still into collecting up
>> all the guns, and in spite of how that is not a popular issue with you and your
>> friends, in a whole lot of the rest of the country, people cherish their 2nd
>> amemdment rights, and in fact all their rights. While California, New York,
>> and a lof of the coastal states would like to forget the 2nd amendment, the
>> rest of the country, those vast seas of red states, believe that without our
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> guns, the liberals would do just as they please, and negate even more of the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> bill of right.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Yeah, what good is it to live in a country where you can't
>shoot the people (or government) with whom you disagree?

Disagreement is one thing, abridging constitutional rights is something else
entirely. I'd only shoot the latter group.

DPH

>> Now, I understand that the Dems have given up on the idea of collecting up all
>> the guns. Maybe they'll actually get somewhere in the polls this time. But, in
>> any close election, the NRA will kill you if you are not pro-gun
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^
>
>Soylent Green[tm] is People!

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:07:54 GMT, bill > wrote:

>Dave Head wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:20:44 GMT, bill > wrote:
>>
>>> Jean H. wrote:
>>>>> Most of the GMOs that I have read about are modified to withstand a
>>>>> particular plant disease or to survive long periods without water, or
>>>>> something like that. There is a need or some foods might not be
>>>>> available at all.
>>>> hum, indeed a lot of them are made resistent to pesticides (not to the
>>>> insects!)... the first one in my mind is the Round Up Ready corn by
>>>> Monsanto..
>>>>
>>>>> Bush is the biggest enemy of research right now, since that fool
>>>>> thinks stem cell research is immoral. Good thing that after November
>>>>> he will be a real "Lame duck". Worst president in my lifetime, except
>>>>> maybe Truman.
>>>>> Bill Baka
>>>> agreed! ... isnt' he the biggest enemy of almost everything?
>>> He seems to be even this countries worst enemy. I don't know how he
>>> could have gotten re-elected, much less by such a big margin, after 4
>>> years of screwing up, unless the Republicans are either
>>> A. Totally stupid.
>>> B. The party is so corrupt that they fixed the election.
>>>
>>> I am just not believing that Kerry lost so badly since everyone I know
>>> voted for him. How did the coward win over the guy who actually served?
>>>
>>> Bill Baka
>>
>> Its easy to understand... at the time, the Dems were still into collecting up
>> all the guns, and in spite of how that is not a popular issue with you and your
>> friends, in a whole lot of the rest of the country, people cherish their 2nd
>> amemdment rights, and in fact all their rights. While California, New York,
>> and a lof of the coastal states would like to forget the 2nd amendment, the
>> rest of the country, those vast seas of red states, believe that without our
>> guns, the liberals would do just as they please, and negate even more of the
>> bill of right.
>>
>> Now, I understand that the Dems have given up on the idea of collecting up all
>> the guns. Maybe they'll actually get somewhere in the polls this time. But, in
>> any close election, the NRA will kill you if you are not pro-gun (notice that
>> doesn't mean simply not anti-gun, but actually _for_ 2nd amendment rights). It
>> doesn't matter to the NRA whether you're Dem or Rep, you get an endorsement
>> from them if you support gun right. Then I vote for that person. And several
>> million other NRA members do the same. And that's how they win the election.
>>
>> Dave Head
>
>I agree with you on the gun thing since I have a purchased legally and
>now illegal semi-automatic and if they think I am just going to walk in
>and give them my gun they are nuts. Anybody who demands MY gun is likely
>to be looking down the barrel.

Yeah, they want my deer rifle, they're going to get it 220 grains at a time,
very fast. They want my shotgun, they're going to get it 1 1/4 oz at a time,
also very fast.

> I'm with you and the NRA on the gun
>thing, but just like the stupid abortion arguments, I can't base an
>election on only one issue.

I can. I figure there's enough other people like you that balance things in
order to make up for my tunnel vision. My tunnel vision, combined with other's
like-targeted tunnel vision helps protect my gun right. Others, if they're of
a mind to, can tunnel-vision on some other issue. If they can muster 4 million
members in any one organization, like the NRA did, maybe they'll get what they
want, too.

> I'm pro-choice and pro-gun but anti Bush and
>most of the current administration. If we had some 'better' Republicans
>to choose from I would vote for them. I am voting for Arnold for a
>second term as California's governor, both because I like him and
>because his Democrat opponent looks kind of sleazy. On the rest it is a
>split ticket, basically voting for the younger blood and the least
>stupid as I have mentioned before. Voting a straight ticket to me is the
>dumbest thing a voter can do, by not checking out each candidate. Like
>the Democrats, for instance, sometimes you get a Kennedy, and sometimes
>you get a Gore and a Kerry. Sometimes the Republicans get a Nixon.
>It's all a game of chance, but I do think there should be an age limit
>of about 75 for anybody. We have Senators and Congressmen who can barely
>remember where they work, yet they keep getting elected.
>And there should definitely be a minimum I.Q. standard for anyone who
>wants to be president, about 120 to cull the chaff.
>Bill Baka

I wouldn't be for an age limit, and an IQ limit I figure could be abused,
faked, or otherwise subverted. I once went to a Mensa meeting and won the
scrabble tournament, but it was time limited, and I don't think that it was
really a great way to determine much. I've never actually taken the Mensa
test, probably never will, but IQ ain't everything, I think.

Dave Head

bill > wrote in
:

....

>
> Bush would like to mess with the constitution, not on guns, but other
> things, so why not bitch about 'junk' amendments? Ever since 9/11 I
> have found excessive police presence. When I turned 55 I went to the
> local Social Security office just to see if I was eligible for
> anything, since I have paid a ton of income tax and SS tax, and I was
> met at the door by a retired cop with a metal detector wand. I said
> "What the F..k is this?" and he said he was hired after 9/11 to
> prevent a possible terrorist occurrence in the office. A Social
> Security office? Get real, there are 3 employees and no money and
> there were 4 gray haired people all over 70 just sitting there. Bush
> is getting ridiculous with the over policing of the country. As people
> on r.b.misc know, I was detained just for riding my bicycle on a
> public road too close to an Air Force base and looking suspicious. I
> am a totally white third generation American and no way do I look the
> least bit arabic, yet I was held until a county sheriff could come and
> load me and my bike for a quick ride back home. Bush may not be
> anti-gun but he sure as hell wants to take our freedoms away. I am
> more worried about being hassled by the Homeland Security people than
> being killed by a terrorist these days. Bill Baka
>>

This is the evidence of another of the myriad of Duh-Byah's idiocies.

Just dish/print out money without asking where or when it will come from
because 'we all know terrorists run from money'. But those 'security
contractors' have to pay for those $5000-a-plate Duh-Byah/Bozo-the-Clown
Meals somehow.

It's working in Iraq, too. What is it today? Over $half-a-trillion
served and half-a-million killed?

D'OH!!

In article >,
Dave Head > wrote:

> >Yeah, what good is it to live in a country where you can't shoot the
> >people (or government) with whom you disagree?
>
> Disagreement is one thing, abridging constitutional rights is
> something else entirely. I'd only shoot the latter group.

You're going to shoot the Republicans?

Dave Head wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:07:54 GMT, bill > wrote:
>
<old stuff snipped>
>> I agree with you on the gun thing since I have a purchased legally and
>> now illegal semi-automatic and if they think I am just going to walk in
>> and give them my gun they are nuts. Anybody who demands MY gun is likely
>> to be looking down the barrel.
>
> Yeah, they want my deer rifle, they're going to get it 220 grains at a time,
> very fast. They want my shotgun, they're going to get it 1 1/4 oz at a time,
> also very fast.

I think that is what the Constitution meant, to defend yourself against
a bad government, but I don't think they could have foreseen a
government with such a modern technical advantage to be abused.
It just gets more interesting with time.
>
>> I'm with you and the NRA on the gun
>> thing, but just like the stupid abortion arguments, I can't base an
>> election on only one issue.
>
> I can. I figure there's enough other people like you that balance things in
> order to make up for my tunnel vision. My tunnel vision, combined with other's
> like-targeted tunnel vision helps protect my gun right. Others, if they're of
> a mind to, can tunnel-vision on some other issue. If they can muster 4 million
> members in any one organization, like the NRA did, maybe they'll get what they
> want, too.

I can't agree or disagree here, since the election of a politician on
one issue may get you one thing you want and ten things you don't. Right
now it seems to be that the parties are going to Hell, both of them, at
the top.
>
>> I'm pro-choice and pro-gun but anti Bush and
>> most of the current administration. If we had some 'better' Republicans
>> to choose from I would vote for them. I am voting for Arnold for a
>> second term as California's governor, both because I like him and
>> because his Democrat opponent looks kind of sleazy. On the rest it is a
>> split ticket, basically voting for the younger blood and the least
>> stupid as I have mentioned before. Voting a straight ticket to me is the
>> dumbest thing a voter can do, by not checking out each candidate. Like
>> the Democrats, for instance, sometimes you get a Kennedy, and sometimes
>> you get a Gore and a Kerry. Sometimes the Republicans get a Nixon.
>> It's all a game of chance, but I do think there should be an age limit
>> of about 75 for anybody. We have Senators and Congressmen who can barely
>> remember where they work, yet they keep getting elected.
>> And there should definitely be a minimum I.Q. standard for anyone who
>> wants to be president, about 120 to cull the chaff.
>> Bill Baka
>
> I wouldn't be for an age limit, and an IQ limit I figure could be abused,
> faked, or otherwise subverted. I once went to a Mensa meeting and won the
> scrabble tournament, but it was time limited, and I don't think that it was
> really a great way to determine much. I've never actually taken the Mensa
> test, probably never will, but IQ ain't everything, I think.
>
> Dave Head

Mensa is actually kind of an ego trip organization. I had some members
for friends and they were always trying to 'one up' each other, both at
work and at Wednesday night Pizza and beer. They both worked for me, so
try to imagine what happened to the unwary who walked into that snake
pit. Those guys are why I didn't join. I also don't want to spend an
entire day taking the full battery of tests.

Other topic, age!
We had a senator in Arizona who served until he was 99 or 100 and
decided to retire rather than run. He died soon after that. I think the
correct name was Strom Thurmond, and he set the all time age record for
an elected official. He probably would have gotten re-elected had he
run, even at that age since he was popular, kind of like a state
treasure that they did not want to vote out.

Age or I.Q.???

I like Robin Williams statement about politicians being like diapers.
Change them often and for the same reason.
Bill Baka