OT - TSA bans gels, liquids at aircraft museums

On 24 Aug 2006 11:58:56 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:


Rand Simberg wrote:
On 24 Aug 2006 11:45:43 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

I think it has more to do with San Antonio than it does Texas. In fact
when one walks along the Riverwalk area one doesn't get the feeling of
being in Texas. San Antonio is unique. I even tell Texans that they can
have Dallas, Houston and El Paso but that they must share San Antonio
with us Yankees! Gets their goad every single time!

It never gets their "goad" (or their goat, either). It just makes
them think, as the rest of us do, that you're an idiot.

You are way too much of a dumb gringo to think that you speak for the
average citizen of San Antonio. I put you on par with the average
****-kicker dirt farmer too damn dumb to know he's got oil on his land
before he sells said land to a carpetbagger like George Bush and
Company.

Yes, you do lots of idiotic thing, Eric.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 24 Aug 2006 11:58:56 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:


Rand Simberg wrote:
On 24 Aug 2006 11:45:43 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

I think it has more to do with San Antonio than it does Texas. In fact
when one walks along the Riverwalk area one doesn't get the feeling of
being in Texas. San Antonio is unique. I even tell Texans that they can
have Dallas, Houston and El Paso but that they must share San Antonio
with us Yankees! Gets their goad every single time!

It never gets their "goad" (or their goat, either). It just makes
them think, as the rest of us do, that you're an idiot.

You are way too much of a dumb gringo to think that you speak for the
average citizen of San Antonio. I put you on par with the average
****-kicker dirt farmer too damn dumb to know he's got oil on his land
before he sells said land to a carpetbagger like George Bush and
Company.

Yes, you do lots of idiotic thing, Eric.

You mean like use singular tense for nouns when proper English is to
use plural? Maybe you should have typed "tings"??

Monte Davis wrote:

Many years ago, when I first read that, it brought tears to my eyes.
And then, when I'd wiped them away, I thought: gee, just like
Pickett's charge, that sounds remarkably like the "human wave... they
place little value on human life" attacks of the Japanese in WWII or
Chinese in Korea or Iranians in the Gulf War or...


Now we're redoing the Battle Of The Crater, with Baghdad being the
crater...first the big explosion, with its shock and awe, then down we
run into the crater's bottom, then we try to figure out how to get out
of the crater to victory while being shot at from all sides.
Onward and upward to victory, it seems- we must stay the course as
that's the only alternative we now have, but the footing seems far from
firm.

Pat

OM wrote:

Won. This is where present Texas came from BTW.



...Uh, not exactly. Texas won its independence w/o direct help from
the US in 1836. They simply joined the Union under Tyler, especially
after Tyler - a States' Rights advocate - allowed the clause that
permitted Texas to leave the Union any damn time they wish if the
Union started ****ing up.


Well...we're waiting. :-)
The Mexican-American war was the one that defined the southern boundary
of Texas as being at the Rio Grande- not at the Nueces river as Mexico
claimed.

Pat

OM wrote:


One nuke, 500' over Tehran to maximize the precursor wave, carried
live on CNN.



And in a few seconds we could kill around 14 million men, women, and
children- which took Hitler years to do, if he ever even reached that
number.
If that's not progress, then what is?
Look at it this way...if you were to give even one second's thought to
each of the people you just suggested killing, you'd be spending the
next 162 days thinking things over.
In short, you finish up on Febuary 2nd, 2007.

Pat

Pat

In message , Pat Flannery
writes

This is a very novel argument...because if they had told the public
that it would take years upon years, cost them over 300 billion
dollars, and send back thousands of their sons and daughters in body
bags, as more and more Ready Reserve and National Guard members were
called up, the American people would have told them to go ****
themselves and the horse they rode in on.

The casualties are real :-( but where is the money going? For example,
the $24 billion (in 1960s dollars) it took to put an American on the
Moon wasn't blown into space - much of it went into highly skilled jobs
in the USA. But who gains from all those deaths and injuries?

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:


The casualties are real :-( but where is the money going? For example,
the $24 billion (in 1960s dollars) it took to put an American on the
Moon wasn't blown into space - much of it went into highly skilled
jobs in the USA. But who gains from all those deaths and injuries?

Well, the contractors who supply the things used for the occupation
forces support and supply weapons and material to the military. For them
this war is a complete windfall, and if one had a suspicious mind, one
would think that Cheney's strong support and advocacy for this war was
somewhat inspired by the amount of money that Halliburton/KBR was sure
to reap from it.
That's one of many things discussed in this blog article:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I688520AD
One of the great criticisms of the defense industry in decades past was
the "Merchants Of Death" concept; that being that weapons manufacturers
had a vested interest in keeping the world in as warlike a state as
possible so as have many places to sell their wares.
The concept of starting a war so as to enrich those who supply the more
mundane aspects of its infrastructure such as food, fuel, and housing is
a new one.
However, anyone reading "Rebuilding America's Defenses":
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf#search=%22rebuildin g%20America's%20defenses%22
Which is basically the Bush/Cheney equivalent of "Mein Kampf" as far as
what to expect in the future from this administration, can't help but
notice certain concepts that are implicit in its overall philosophy:
1.) That all of our present military bases are in the wrong places for
the current world situation, and new bases in new locations need to be
built. (Section III, .pdf page 26)
2.) That private contractors, not National Guard forces, should be
responsible for providing logistical support for an army in the field or
at a overseas base. (Section IV, .pdf page 34)
These sure sound like thing that Halliburton/KBR would be capable of
doing, don't they?
I'd forgotten this little turn of phrase from that report, from page 18
of the PDF:

"HOMELAND DEFENSE. America must defend its homeland. During the Cold War,
nuclear deterrence was the key element in homeland defense; it remains
essential. But the
new century has brought with it new challenges. While reconfiguring its
nuclear force, the
United States also must counteract the effects of the proliferation of
ballistic missiles and
weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter
U.S. military action
by threatening U.S. allies and the American homeland itself. Of all the
new and current
missions for U.S. armed forces, this must have priority."

_Homeland_ Defense? In a report from September _2000_ ?
Right month- but wrong year one would think.

Pat

On 24 Aug 2006 12:12:55 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

You are way too much of a dumb gringo to think that you speak for the
average citizen of San Antonio. I put you on par with the average
****-kicker dirt farmer too damn dumb to know he's got oil on his land
before he sells said land to a carpetbagger like George Bush and
Company.

Yes, you do lots of idiotic thing, Eric.

You mean like use singular tense for nouns when proper English is to
use plural?

You mean typos?

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote
in message ...

The casualties are real :-( but where is the money going? For example, the
$24 billion (in 1960s dollars) it took to put an American on the Moon
wasn't blown into space - much of it went into highly skilled jobs in the
USA.

Many of which disappeared even before the programme finished.

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Scott Hedrick wrote:

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...

LBJ- Vietnam.
GWB- Iraq.


FDR- WW2

Won.

Lincoln- War of Southern Aggression

Don't you mean "War Of Northern Aggression"?

The South fired first. They were a bunch of emotional hotheads that
attempted to secede before they'd come up with a proper plan. The *South*
was the aggressor.


Won.

Truman- Korea

Won or stalemate, depending on whether it was fought to keep south free,
or destroy communism in north. If fought to stop aggression by North
Korea, then won.

Tyler- Mexico

Won. This is where present Texas came from BTW.

Wilson- WW1

Won.

And so on and so forth...

Vietnam- lost.
Iraq- who knows? This side of a miracle, lost.

Guess that depends on what alternate Earth version of Iraq you're talking
about. The one on this Earth is doing quite well.