said:

No way big business will allow Bush to not be reelected.

Maybe in whatever squalid little ******** wannabe country you
live in, business gets to decide that. Here, if we can keep the
Hollywood liberals, lawyers associations, and unions at bay ( and we
usually do ), the *people* decide. Otherwise, we get another
DemocRat.

Hola! You must have lost a tooth today. Or did you blow out all the
candles on your birthday cake?

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 18:20:14 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



said:

No way big business will allow Bush to not be reelected.

Maybe in whatever squalid little ******** wannabe country you
live in, business gets to decide that. Here, if we can keep the
Hollywood liberals, lawyers associations, and unions at bay ( and we
usually do ), the *people* decide. Otherwise, we get another
DemocRat.

Hola! You must have lost a tooth today. Or did you blow out all the
candles on your birthday cake?


Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot all about getting rid of George Soros.
Yeh, he has to go. I know you were upset that I left him off the
list :-)



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

In article ,
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:42:03 -0500, AAA wrote:

Firstly,

No way big business will allow Bush to not be reelected.

Maybe in whatever squalid little ******** wannabe country you
live in, business gets to decide that.



.:\:/:.
+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

wrote:
AAA wrote:

Firstly,

No way big business will allow Bush to not be reelected.

Maybe in whatever squalid little ******** wannabe country you
live in, business gets to decide that. Here, if we can keep the
Hollywood liberals, lawyers associations, and unions at bay ( and we
usually do ), the *people* decide.

The usual right-wing disconnect from reality.

Secondly,

As a DESPISER of AMERICA,

Despise *this*, mother****er.

Impressive response.

Chances are, whatever mud hut
you live in only has freedom *because* of the USA,

The US, where people can be thrown into prison and left to rot just
because Bush says so. Where corporate profits are more important than
people's lives.

--
Ray Fischer

PD said:

You must live in one of those Socialist third-world ********s
like Germany, England, France, or Nigeria ( pick any one ) that dream
of being the USA, but never will be.

This is the typical arrogance and lack of awareness we see from a
proportion of people in the US.

Ooh, now you've done it. You misused "proportion" (should be
percentage, segment, bloc, or whatever). You presumed to speak for an
unknown audience ("we see"). You assumed facts not in evidence
("typical arrogance and lack of awareness").

Naughty little limey drunkard.

PD said:

This is the typical arrogance and lack of awareness we see from a
proportion of people in the US.

Ooh, now you've done it. You misused "proportion" (should be
percentage, segment, bloc, or whatever). You presumed to speak for an
unknown audience ("we see"). You assumed facts not in evidence
("typical arrogance and lack of awareness").

Have you ever considered that you might, on extremely rare occasions,
exude a somewhat pedantic approach to chitty-chat? Is this a friggin'
library or wot.

I restrained myself, didn't I. Anyway, you need to work on your
groveling for forgiveness.


Naughty little limey drunkard.

I haven't bloody started yet!

My mistake. :-(

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:33:35 +0000, G.S. Nail
wrote:

wrote:

Despise *this*, mother****er. Chances are, whatever mud hut
you live in only has freedom *because* of the USA, so shut your whiny
little cake-hole.

USA - saviour of the free world!

Eloquently put :-) And I must give credit, your own UK does
stand by us, despite what a bunch of screaming socialist loonies on &
at the BBC would have you believe.

I WANT bush reelected. What's not to like?
Americans dying, huge budget deficit, plunder of the environment, lack
of democracy and guns for all.

You must live in one of those Socialist third-world ********s
like Germany, England, France, or Nigeria ( pick any one ) that dream
of being the USA, but never will be.

This is the typical arrogance and lack of awareness we see from a
proportion of people in the US.

In response to the typical hysterical monotone tunnel-visioned
' hate Bush, and hate America' crap that was presented.

Some experts project that over the next couple of decades power and
wealth will ebb away from the USA to countries which still have
significant oil reserves. That seems intuitive - the way things stand

Not even to delve into our own IMMENSE energy reserves and
resources ( which, BTW, you don't have ) - but it takes more than some
stuff underground. That is not what makes a people great, nor what
makes a country the leader of the free world.

right now your country would face a major crisis if the oil flow is
interrupted, let alone stopped abruptly. More sources *are* required

So would yours. In fact, the UK would fold about an order of
magnitude faster.

obtained from elsewhere to sustain the US's gluttonous and overbearing
requirement on oil reserves, and the "squeeze" can only increase over
time effectively causing a shift in power. If this picture is true,
the standard of living in the US is likely to diminish rapidly, and I
would like to see come back and mouth off in the quite same way under
those circumstances.

Well, so many thanks for your kind regards. But the scenario
your drool over will never happen.



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 01:21:09 +0000, G.S. Nail
wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:

You must live in one of those Socialist third-world ********s
like Germany, England, France, or Nigeria ( pick any one ) that dream
of being the USA, but never will be.

This is the typical arrogance and lack of awareness we see from a
proportion of people in the US.

Ooh, now you've done it. You misused "proportion" (should be
percentage, segment, bloc, or whatever). You presumed to speak for an
unknown audience ("we see"). You assumed facts not in evidence
("typical arrogance and lack of awareness").

Have you ever considered that you might, on extremely rare occasions,
exude a somewhat pedantic approach to chitty-chat? Is this a friggin'
library or wot.

Naughty little limey drunkard.

I haven't bloody started yet!

Look ear, mate !

{ insert unintelligable British babble and quaint
colloquialisms here }

Right ! Now off with you then !



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

PD said:

I restrained myself, didn't I.

No, you are wrong about that.

Next one's on me.


Anyway, you need to work on your groveling for forgiveness.

N/A.

Truth anyway.


Naughty little limey drunkard.

I haven't bloody started yet!

My mistake. :-(

Yes your mistake. I'm probably taller than you, too.

Irrelevant.


So whilst we're on the subject, how many times did you beat up your
boyfriend last week?

That gorilla? You've definitely got your bottles upside down now.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 03:16:06 +0000, G.S. Nail
wrote:

In response to the typical hysterical monotone tunnel-visioned
' hate Bush, and hate America' crap that was presented.

Hang on to the moral high ground, why dontcha..

Easily accomplished, I'm a Republican :-)

If your reserves are so IMMENSE, why do you rely so heavily on
imported oil?

Whose should we use up first, ours, or someone else's ? :-)

If your resources are so great, how come you came so
near to crisis point when the Venezuelan flow was interrupted? You
only had *hours* of stock left to maintain normal levels of
consumption, a pretty close shave.

Interesting story. I'm not familiar with the basis for it.

I also don't know how many millions of bbl's are in our
National Reserve, but I know it's huge.

Incidently you say we (UK) don't have such reserves, but IIRC UK oil
reserves are greater than USA per capita, not to mention that we also
consume far less per capita.

Yeh - because it's priced out of reach, you can't afford what
we can.

So would yours. In fact, the UK would fold about an order of
magnitude faster.

Why would this be? We have a reliance on oil, but our demands are
less.

Because you don't have the reserves. We do. And where your
demand is already minimzed due to high costs you can't afford, ours
has lots of room to be reduced if needed. We've done it before, we
can do it again.

Also, you are descended as a people from a race of miniature
little Celtics and Picts and such, who ran around the woods naked
worshipping rocks. The fact that you survived as anything more than
housepets is in itself astonishing :-)

No I don't "drool over" that prospect, but you are wrong to think it
could never happen. For a start, what is your superb plan for when the
oil drys up completely? It is going to happen, you know. Let's see you
work backwards from there.

Sorry, I'm not in charge of long range global planning. :-)

But when it's gone ( long after I'm dead ), we'll have other
resources, and you won't. Coal, gas, nuclear, ethanol, wind, hydro,
solar - and more yet to be invented, I'm sure.

You, on the other hand, will be scrambling about the bog for a
nice piece of mammoth dung to cook dinner over :-)



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

"G.S. Nail" wrote in message
news

No I don't "drool over" that prospect, but you are wrong to think it
could never happen. For a start, what is your superb plan for when the
oil drys up completely? It is going to happen, you know. Let's see you
work backwards from there.

Fuel cells with alcohol sourced hydrogen.
We still have immense agricultural reserves.

Hybrid cars will aid the transition.

We may see a resurgence in nuclear power for
electricity.

Meanwhile we continue to import as much as possible
and minimize domestic development. I don't know if
it is dumb luck or well thought out strategy but there
is no reason to consume our own reserves when others
will sell theirs at reasonable prices.

ScottW

PD said:

Naughty little limey drunkard.

I haven't bloody started yet!

My mistake. :-(

Yes your mistake. I'm probably taller than you, too.

Irrelevant.

You might be fatter.

No, you may not meet my boyfriend.

George M. Middius wrote:

Scott Gardner said:


The ones I have a real cognitive problem with are the ones that are so
vocal in their opinions that they're almost as famous now for their
political views as they are for what made them celebrities in the
first place. I'm talking about people like Streisand, Fonda, and
Sarandon.


You left out Ah-nold. His political position is that he can forgive
himself for crimes committed in an earlier phase of his fantastic life.

It's different when right-wing celebrities spout off. Everyone knows by
now that the right of free speech is now reserved solely for ditto heads.

wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:33:12 -0500, Tom Disque
wrote:


On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:53:33 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



Scott Gardner said:


The ones I have a real cognitive problem with are the ones that are so
vocal in their opinions that they're almost as famous now for their
political views as they are for what made them celebrities in the
first place. I'm talking about people like Streisand, Fonda, and
Sarandon.

You left out Ah-nold. His political position is that he can forgive
himself for crimes committed in an earlier phase of his fantastic life.

What crimes are those?


He grabbed a little handful of booty and ta-ta 20 or 30 years
ago from some slut that was sticking it in his face, wrapped in a pair
of sprayed-on short-shorts. Haven't you been keeping up ?

Not to mention all the various other females who had the misfortune to
cross his path in the intervening period. He was still playing grabass
as recently as his publicity tour for T3.

But hipocracy is the right-wing virtue.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:55:11 GMT, pudentame
wrote:

You left out Ah-nold. His political position is that he can forgive
himself for crimes committed in an earlier phase of his fantastic life.

It's different when right-wing celebrities spout off. Everyone knows by
now that the right of free speech is now reserved solely for ditto heads.



More leftist bull****.

Just because the overwhleming majority disagrees with the
left-wing liberals and DemocRats in general, that by no strech means
they don't have the right to say what they want. And be ignored by
ayone who chooses to ignore them. That, too, is part of 'freedom of
speech'.

Your right to speak does not impose on me an obligation to
listen and agree.



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:58:44 GMT, pudentame
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:33:12 -0500, Tom Disque
wrote:


On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:53:33 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



Scott Gardner said:


The ones I have a real cognitive problem with are the ones that are so
vocal in their opinions that they're almost as famous now for their
political views as they are for what made them celebrities in the
first place. I'm talking about people like Streisand, Fonda, and
Sarandon.

You left out Ah-nold. His political position is that he can forgive
himself for crimes committed in an earlier phase of his fantastic life.

What crimes are those?


He grabbed a little handful of booty and ta-ta 20 or 30 years
ago from some slut that was sticking it in his face, wrapped in a pair
of sprayed-on short-shorts. Haven't you been keeping up ?

Not to mention all the various other females who had the misfortune to
cross his path in the intervening period. He was still playing grabass
as recently as his publicity tour for T3.

But hipocracy is the right-wing virtue.

More leftist bull****. Bill Clinton is the leader of the
liberals, the DemocRats, and his presence strips them of any right to
bleed self-righteously about 'respect for women'.



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:58:44 GMT, pudentame
wrote:

But hipocracy is the right-wing virtue.

And hip-hopcracy is the hallmark of the left.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:59:00 GMT,
wrote:

More leftist bull****.

Just because the overwhleming majority disagrees with the
left-wing liberals and DemocRats in general, that by no strech means
they don't have the right to say what they want. And be ignored by
ayone who chooses to ignore them. That, too, is part of 'freedom of
speech'.

Your right to speak does not impose on me an obligation to
listen and agree.

Or even listen. That's the problem.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:07:08 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:59:00 GMT,
wrote:

More leftist bull****.

Just because the overwhleming majority disagrees with the
left-wing liberals and DemocRats in general, that by no strech means
they don't have the right to say what they want. And be ignored by
ayone who chooses to ignore them. That, too, is part of 'freedom of
speech'.

Your right to speak does not impose on me an obligation to
listen and agree.

Or even listen. That's the problem.

No, that's no problem at all. Most especially when you
obviously imply that listening equals at least partial agreement.

I've listened to all of the liberal DemocRat Anti-Bush
anti-America One-World-Run-By-The-UN rant that I care to hear.



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 21:19:39 GMT,
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:07:08 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:59:00 GMT,
wrote:

More leftist bull****.

Just because the overwhleming majority disagrees with the
left-wing liberals and DemocRats in general, that by no strech means
they don't have the right to say what they want. And be ignored by
ayone who chooses to ignore them. That, too, is part of 'freedom of
speech'.

Your right to speak does not impose on me an obligation to
listen and agree.

Or even listen. That's the problem.

No, that's no problem at all. Most especially when you
obviously imply that listening equals at least partial agreement.

You weren't listening again. You should stop that.

chuckle

I've listened to all of the liberal DemocRat Anti-Bush
anti-America One-World-Run-By-The-UN rant that I care to hear.

Stay with Fox where you can hear what you want to hear. Fine with me.

PD said:

No, you may not meet my boyfriend.

What me and your boyfriend get up to is none of your business.

Good thing he's allergic to drunks.

wrote:
I've listened to all of the liberal DemocRat Anti-Bush
anti-America One-World-Run-By-The-UN rant that I care to hear.

You're tired of hearing the truth.

Which is, no doubt, why you like Bush.

He doesn't bother you with the truth.

--
Ray Fischer

wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 03:16:06 +0000, G.S. Nail
wrote:

In response to the typical hysterical monotone tunnel-visioned
' hate Bush, and hate America' crap that was presented.

Hang on to the moral high ground, why dontcha..

Easily accomplished, I'm a Republican :-)

That explains why you're a stupid hypocrite.

If your reserves are so IMMENSE, why do you rely so heavily on
imported oil?

Whose should we use up first, ours, or someone else's ? :-)

Neither?

If your resources are so great, how come you came so
near to crisis point when the Venezuelan flow was interrupted? You
only had *hours* of stock left to maintain normal levels of
consumption, a pretty close shave.

Interesting story. I'm not familiar with the basis for it.

Of course not. You're Republican.

I also don't know how many millions of bbl's are in our
National Reserve, but I know it's huge.

A couple weeks wirth, maybe. None it intended for the likes of you.

Incidently you say we (UK) don't have such reserves, but IIRC UK oil
reserves are greater than USA per capita, not to mention that we also
consume far less per capita.

Yeh - because it's priced out of reach, you can't afford what
we can.

No, it's because they don't subsidize oil consumption like the US.

--
Ray Fischer

PD said:

Good thing he's allergic to drunks.

That's what he says to you. He could be telling me the exact opposite!

METHYPHOBIA:

If only it were that simple. Like you. :-)

In article , Ray Fischer
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 03:16:06 +0000, G.S. Nail
wrote:

In response to the typical hysterical monotone tunnel-visioned
' hate Bush, and hate America' crap that was presented.

Hang on to the moral high ground, why dontcha..

Easily accomplished, I'm a Republican :-)

That explains why you're a stupid hypocrite.

I love it. Underating your opponent is what why the DemocRATs let the
GOP win in 2000 and 2002. Keep it up and they'll win in 2004.

In article , Ray Fischer
wrote:

wrote:
I've listened to all of the liberal DemocRat Anti-Bush
anti-America One-World-Run-By-The-UN rant that I care to hear.

You're tired of hearing the truth.

Which is, no doubt, why you like Bush.

He doesn't bother you with the truth.

Does any politician? Get serious! Do you believe Dean, or Kerry, or
Lieberman tells the truth? Boy, you are naive.

Dormer sobbed:

Some experts project that over the next couple of decades power and
wealth will ebb away from the USA to countries which still have
significant oil reserves. That seems intuitive - the way things stand
right now your country would face a major crisis if the oil flow is
interrupted, let alone stopped abruptly. More sources *are* required
obtained from elsewhere to sustain the US's gluttonous and overbearing
requirement on oil reserves, and the "squeeze" can only increase over
time effectively causing a shift in power. If this picture is true,
the standard of living in the US is likely to diminish rapidly, and I
would like to see come back and mouth off in the quite same way under
those circumstances.

Jealous that British hegemony long ago faded, while that of the U. S. of A.
continues unabated and shall do so for the foreseeable future?

You can always go cry in your beer, poor baby.

(Far as oil goes, we have an ace in the hole - the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.)


GeoSynch

dave weil wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 21:19:39 GMT,
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:07:08 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:59:00 GMT,
wrote:

More leftist bull****.

Just because the overwhleming majority disagrees with the
left-wing liberals and DemocRats in general, that by no strech means
they don't have the right to say what they want. And be ignored by
ayone who chooses to ignore them. That, too, is part of 'freedom of
speech'.

Your right to speak does not impose on me an obligation to
listen and agree.

Or even listen. That's the problem.

No, that's no problem at all. Most especially when you
obviously imply that listening equals at least partial agreement.

You weren't listening again. You should stop that.

chuckle

I've listened to all of the liberal DemocRat Anti-Bush
anti-America One-World-Run-By-The-UN rant that I care to hear.

Stay with Fox where you can hear what you want to hear. Fine with me

Well, Twinky, we complained for thirty years about the dominance of
leftist, network news before FOX and Rush came along, and your crowd
told us to stick it up our ass. We hope you don't mind if we tell you
to stay tuned to those old, leftist network stations, because when
people have a choice, leftists always lose. Do you really think anyone
listens to the likes of people like Koppel, Donahue, Rather, Jennings,
Cronkite, 60 Minutes and all that leftist crap when they have a
choice?

Sorry, sir, but your crowd is not against one side being heard, per
se, but against the other side being heard as well. It's now happening
and you people are mad as wet hens.

Cordially, Marie

What you always wanted to know regarding Prescott Bush, Samuel Bush
and George Herbert Walker - but did not a) dare, b) appreciate to ask?

http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Haeckelian_legacy.pdf

Check the epilogue "Sins of the Fathers" in my A0-sized pdf-poster
entitled

"Haeckelian Legacy of Popularization: Vertebrate Embryos and the
Survival of the Fakest".


Pauli Ojala
Helsinki
Finland


PS. Be patient, the A0 -pdf evidence of mine is 1.8 megabytes.
Another version, with an emphasis on Ernst Haeckel's race biological
assault:

http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Asian_bioethics.pdf

Ed Foster wrote:
Ray Fischer
wrote:

In response to the typical hysterical monotone tunnel-visioned
' hate Bush, and hate America' crap that was presented.

Hang on to the moral high ground, why dontcha..

Easily accomplished, I'm a Republican :-)

That explains why you're a stupid hypocrite.

I love it. Underating your opponent is what why the DemocRATs let the
GOP win in 2000 and 2002.

Who'd ever thought that they'd stoop so low as to steal an election?
Or shamelessly profit from the deaths of 3,000 Americans?

--
Ray Fischer

"G.S. Nail" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote:

No I don't "drool over" that prospect, but you are wrong to think it
could never happen. For a start, what is your superb plan for when the
oil drys up completely? It is going to happen, you know. Let's see you
work backwards from there.

Fuel cells with alcohol sourced hydrogen.
We still have immense agricultural reserves.

Hybrid cars will aid the transition.

The Big Four tried producing high efficiency cars for the US market
but the preference is for gas guzzlers. When are people going to start
taking this seriously?

When the market (price of fuel) forces the consumer into an
energy efficient vehicle. Many Americans will do it when they
"have to" and not before. Still the number of hybrid
vehicles on the road are increasing rapidly.
They may soon become a viable economic alternative.
I even read a hybrid SUV may soon be available
Why is this such a big deal?

Go hate the Russians for rejecting Kyoto.


We may see a resurgence in nuclear power for
electricity.

Oil is 90% about transportation, dude.

We are heavily dependent on natural gas for electricity production
and rapidly moving to import quantities of liquified NG.
Those reserves will eventually be exhausted as well.


Meanwhile we continue to import as much as possible
and minimize domestic development. I don't know if
it is dumb luck or well thought out strategy but there
is no reason to consume our own reserves when others
will sell theirs at reasonable prices.

Projections I've seen put US reserves in the US at about 50% of
current levels in 10 years, the same in the UK. You say you are not
using your reserves? Discovery rates are poor in the US, reserves in
decline.

Significant untapped reserves exist in Alaska and off shore
(Ca. for example). What you say is all true but we may well be
one of the last countries to have "any" reserves simply because
we no longer aggressively develop our own.

You *have* to outsource to maintain your elephantine per
capita demand.

And, IMO, outsourcing supplies to meet that demand is
a good long term strategic move.

The only places where discovery rates and reserves are
of real significance is in the Middle East.

Which are as dependent on Western oil revenue as we are
on their oil supply.
But that is changing slightly.
Russia and some former Soviet Republics are quickly becoming significant
producers to asian markets.

ScottW

In talk.abortion, Ed Foster

wrote
on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 03:35:22 GMT
:
In article , Ray Fischer
wrote:

wrote:
I've listened to all of the liberal DemocRat Anti-Bush
anti-America One-World-Run-By-The-UN rant that I care to hear.

You're tired of hearing the truth.

Which is, no doubt, why you like Bush.

He doesn't bother you with the truth.

Does any politician? Get serious! Do you believe Dean, or Kerry, or
Lieberman tells the truth? Boy, you are naive.

If you're arguing that we should vote in Bush just because everyone
else is a liar too you'll have to show a little more work. :-)

As far as I can tell Bush makes Nixon look like a saint. Or perhaps
it's his Administration, not Bush himself -- I'm not really sure.
(I'm not sure I really care.)

Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the Democrats have yet to
come up with a better answer at present either, although
Dean is currently the front runner. I feel sorry for
our country, especially since Bush's tax plan seems
to be working, despite its massive deficits and lack
of cost-cutting, to restart our economy; we're at the
forefront of what should be a nice recovery, although
joblessness is still a problem.

This strongly suggests Bush will be reelected in 2004,
possibly by a landslide if the economy gets strong enough
by midyear. If Bush gets back in by a sufficient margin
he'll interpret it as a vindication of most, if not all,
of his policies -- including an abortion ban attempt.
Worse, he'll be able to appoint at least one, probably two,
Supreme Court justices, and those justices will probably be
grilled, not until lightly tender, but burnt to a crisp,
on the question of whether they would vote to overturn
Roe vs. Wade and other such decisions.

Still, our country has survived bad policy before.
We survived Harding, for example -- Teapot Dome and all.
We survived Coolidge. (I'm not sure if one can blame
him for the Great Depression, admittedly. Probably not;
the Depression was caused by a multitude of factors.)
We survived JFK, who apparently had a *very* corrupt (and
short) administration, despite JFK's vision and charisma.
We survived Nixon, Watergate and all.

We'll survive Bush.

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 05:02:21 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

As far as I can tell Bush makes Nixon look like a saint. Or perhaps
it's his Administration, not Bush himself -- I'm not really sure.
(I'm not sure I really care.)

Then you can't tell much. You're just letting your
psychopathic hatred of all things Bush color everything you see.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the Democrats have yet to
come up with a better answer at present either, although
Dean is currently the front runner. I feel sorry for

How about Dean sealing **ALL** records from his tenure in
Vermont ? He started out asking for **24 YEARS** of seal, and
eventually settled for 10 ! And he sealed *anything with his name on
it that he could seal* ! And he *refuses to let anyone see all those
records* !!!

Talk about making Nixon look honest ....

Worse, he'll be able to appoint at least one, probably two,
Supreme Court justices, and those justices will probably be
grilled, not until lightly tender, but burnt to a crisp,
on the question of whether they would vote to overturn
Roe vs. Wade and other such decisions.

Grilled by DemocRats and Republicans alike.

Still, our country has survived bad policy before.
We survived Harding, for example -- Teapot Dome and all.
We survived Coolidge. (I'm not sure if one can blame
him for the Great Depression, admittedly. Probably not;
the Depression was caused by a multitude of factors.)
We survived JFK, who apparently had a *very* corrupt (and
short) administration, despite JFK's vision and charisma.
We survived Nixon, Watergate and all.

We survived Clinton, we can survive anything.

Except maybe another Clinton.



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

pjm wrote:


On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 05:02:21 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

As far as I can tell Bush makes Nixon look like a saint. Or perhaps
it's his Administration, not Bush himself -- I'm not really sure.
(I'm not sure I really care.)

Then you can't tell much. You're just letting your
psychopathic hatred of all things Bush color everything you see.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the Democrats have yet to
come up with a better answer at present either, although
Dean is currently the front runner. I feel sorry for

How about Dean sealing **ALL** records from his tenure in
Vermont ? He started out asking for **24 YEARS** of seal, and
eventually settled for 10 ! And he sealed *anything with his name on
it that he could seal* ! And he *refuses to let anyone see all those
records* !!!

Talk about making Nixon look honest ....

Worse, he'll be able to appoint at least one, probably two,
Supreme Court justices, and those justices will probably be
grilled, not until lightly tender, but burnt to a crisp,
on the question of whether they would vote to overturn
Roe vs. Wade and other such decisions.

Grilled by DemocRats and Republicans alike.

Still, our country has survived bad policy before.
We survived Harding, for example -- Teapot Dome and all.
We survived Coolidge. (I'm not sure if one can blame
him for the Great Depression, admittedly. Probably not;
the Depression was caused by a multitude of factors.)
We survived JFK, who apparently had a *very* corrupt (and
short) administration, despite JFK's vision and charisma.
We survived Nixon, Watergate and all.

We survived Clinton, we can survive anything.

Except maybe another Clinton.



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/








So which candidate do you guys think has the best audio system?

I just thought I'd make this an audio-related post since RAO has occasionally
been accused of not posting audio-related posts. Not that there's anything
wrong with that.



Bruce J. Richman

In article , Ray Fischer
wrote:

Ed Foster wrote:
Ray Fischer
wrote:

In response to the typical hysterical monotone tunnel-visioned
' hate Bush, and hate America' crap that was presented.

Hang on to the moral high ground, why dontcha..

Easily accomplished, I'm a Republican :-)

That explains why you're a stupid hypocrite.

I love it. Underating your opponent is what why the DemocRATs let the
GOP win in 2000 and 2002.

Who'd ever thought that they'd stoop so low as to steal an election?

Oh goodie another whiner. If enough DemocRATs believe they lost in
2000 (and 2002?) because the election was stolen they'll never address
their real problems and the GOP will win again in 2004. But you'll be
OK, Ray, you can just reparrot your stale stolen election mantra.

In article , The Ghost In
The Machine wrote:

In talk.abortion, Ed Foster

wrote
on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 03:35:22 GMT
:
In article , Ray Fischer
wrote:

wrote:
I've listened to all of the liberal DemocRat Anti-Bush
anti-America One-World-Run-By-The-UN rant that I care to hear.

You're tired of hearing the truth.

Which is, no doubt, why you like Bush.

He doesn't bother you with the truth.

Does any politician? Get serious! Do you believe Dean, or Kerry, or
Lieberman tells the truth? Boy, you are naive.

If you're arguing that we should vote in Bush just because everyone
else is a liar too...

It's not.


As far as I can tell Bush makes Nixon look like a saint. Or perhaps
it's his Administration, not Bush himself -- I'm not really sure.
(I'm not sure I really care.)

Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the Democrats have yet to
come up with a better answer at present either, although
Dean is currently the front runner. I feel sorry for
our country, especially since Bush's tax plan seems
to be working,...


Sort of an odd reaction to something that works.


...despite its massive deficits and lack
of cost-cutting,


I go along with you about the lack of cost-cutting.


to restart our economy; we're at the
forefront of what should be a nice recovery, although
joblessness is still a problem.

Economists claim that job recovery always lags business recovery.
Businesses like to be sure that the economy really is on an upswing
before they commit to taking on more workers.


This strongly suggests Bush will be reelected in 2004,
possibly by a landslide if the economy gets strong enough
by midyear.


As Clinton said "it's the economy".

If Bush gets back in by a sufficient margin
he'll interpret it as a vindication of most, if not all,
of his policies -- including an abortion ban attempt.
Worse, he'll be able to appoint at least one, probably two,
Supreme Court justices, and those justices will probably be
grilled, not until lightly tender, but burnt to a crisp,
on the question of whether they would vote to overturn
Roe vs. Wade and other such decisions.

Still, our country has survived bad policy before.
We survived Harding, for example -- Teapot Dome and all.
We survived Coolidge. (I'm not sure if one can blame
him for the Great Depression, admittedly. Probably not;
the Depression was caused by a multitude of factors.)
We survived JFK, who apparently had a *very* corrupt (and
short) administration, despite JFK's vision and charisma.
We survived Nixon, Watergate and all.


You left out the biggest disaster, LBJ.

In article ,
wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 05:02:21 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

As far as I can tell Bush makes Nixon look like a saint. Or perhaps
it's his Administration, not Bush himself -- I'm not really sure.
(I'm not sure I really care.)

Then you can't tell much. You're just letting your
psychopathic hatred of all things Bush color everything you see.


It's called BDS. See
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37125-2003Dec4.html

"Marie A." wrote in message
Sorry, sir, but your crowd is not against one side being heard, per
se, but against the other side being heard as well. It's now happening
and you people are mad as wet hens.

Cordially, Marie

One BIG difference, When Clinton was in office protesters were allowed INTO
his speeches. With Bush they are banned to predefined areas 1/2 mile away.
Who is against the other side being heard?????? There goes free
speech.......
-JA

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:51:24 GMT, "John Anderson"
wrote:


"Marie A." wrote in message
Sorry, sir, but your crowd is not against one side being heard, per
se, but against the other side being heard as well. It's now happening
and you people are mad as wet hens.

Cordially, Marie

One BIG difference, When Clinton was in office protesters were allowed INTO
his speeches. With Bush they are banned to predefined areas 1/2 mile away.
Who is against the other side being heard?????? There goes free
speech.......
-JA


Bull****.

The ones who are against free speech are the protestors who
try to barge in and prevent others, like Bush, from speaking.

The protestors *get* their chance to speak, get on camera,
etc, all they want, except there is no such thing as 'all they want',
because what they want is to totally take over everything, disrupt
everything, and silence anyone they disagree with, including the
leaders who were elected by the people under the American system.

'Free speech' does not mean that you have the right to stand
up and out-scream everyone else, thus silencing everyone else, any
time you feel like it. The liberals fail to understand this.



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

said:

The ones who are against free speech are the protestors who
try to barge in and prevent others, like Bush, from speaking.

Aren't you worried that JEE-zus will stop loving you for being such a
flaming asshole?