OT Safely stopping vehicles trying to run check-points

Don't worry, once the Iraq's pay us back the 400-700 billion from the oil revenues for the war, we can pay the lawyers.

Jeff Rice wrote:

england some months back had some radiation monitors start singling long and loud.. they THOUGHT one of their reactors was leaking.. they werent.. but it WAS VERY hot, radiation wise.

--Shiva--

Yes. Clinton skipped out of Vietnam, but he did not lie us into a war. All countries adapt their strategies to win.That is what we did and still try to do. The problems in this and all countries are due to human nature. The things going on in our country are not part of some evil plot by foreigners Yes, both side of the political spectrum have their crooks and liars. But it's been 40 year since the Democrats lied us into a war, just 4 years for the Republicans, so getting rid of the Republicans should be the first step in cleaning up government. If the people were awake they would not fall for the lies of whoever is in power or wants to be in power. It would be great if we had a viable third or even 4th party, but that is not a viable alternative at this time and any vote for a third party is wasted. The Nader people are to blame for Bush getting in office.

OK Alex.. OK... From what you have written ad nauseum, it's all about lying. But you are being selective about which lies you choose to talk about. Be a complete person and bitch about ALL of the lies, and not just the ones that hurt your cause or party. You blame Nader's gang in print because, according to you, they put Bush into office. Why not toss a blame coin at Perot, just to balance your teeter totter? Or, why not mention the coin flipped to Jesse Jackson to get him to go away and stop campaigning for office. (Nice jet, by the way). You just wrote one line that I absolutely love... Here, I'll quote it (for accuracy).. "If the people were awake they would not fall for the lies of whoever is in power or wants to be in power." I have only one question.... Who the Hell else is there? Let's find someone....quick! Jeff

"Alex Magdaleno" wrote...

Yes Perot helped put Clinton in office. The difference is, Clinton was not a disaster and did not break the bank and lie us into a war. Thus the Perot voters have nothing to be ashamed of or take resposibility for. Not so for the Nader voters. Who else is there? For now, no one but either Republican or Democrat who can win. If the people were awake in the primaries we would have a better quality of Republicans and Democrats to pick from.

The statement Bush lied to get us into war is a merely political statement, not a fact. If one did some research, as your referenced, they will discover the public record shows the President that 'lied' the US into a war that needed to be fought sooner of later was FDR It was the correct thing to do, because most American at the time were not willing to take on the growing worldwide threat to our freedom. President Bush on the other hand, beside the power granted to the President by the Constriction, was granted the authority to invade Iraq by the Congress. He too understands the current growing worldwide threat to our freedom, and is indeed is fighting a war the needs to be fought. ;)

Difference? Your earworm is pretty loud Alex . People awake? Probably more like 50% asleep, 4% awake, and 46% trained puppies (mixed breeds, and some even have papers ). You keep on singing your tune Alex....somebody, somewhere, will listen. Jeff

"Alex Magdaleno" wrote...

I Disagree.

Just took a booming economy and turned into a recession.

No he lied about damnear everything else.

And he played King Log while the Jihadists attacked us over and over again. Hee showed waht a wussie he is and cost our country greatly.

And His Shreiking Moonbat wife is a huge danger to us again.

I apologize - I vioted for Perot, trying to "send a message". I learned - don't send a message. The only message will be that the worse of two evils will win.

I am not happy with the prosecution of the war. However, I am not ashamed of this president, the way I was of the last.

The WMDs that the UN and Congress and all the democrats "knew" were under development have not surfaced - Oh wait, didn't we find a bunch of evidence that Saddam WAS trying to reconstitute that capability?

I am not going to change your mind, but you are not presenting the truth as I see it.

I am pretty disgusted with the left side of our country refusing to acknowledge that Fundamental Islamic fascists benefit from their placing their political views above the safety of their country.

Mark (Pretty disgusted with the political games) Dunning

You need to brush up on history, and to learn how your government works, before you post on a subject of which you obviously relying on, or been given misinformation or incorrect information..

The US has always operated in deficit in time of war. The President can only spend money appropriated by the Congress. The increased spending and the authority to go to war against the radial Islamic terrorist that attacked us, as well as these who support or harbor radial Islamic terrorist was granted to President Bush by the Congress.

Clinton actually did lie to a Judge as well as the America people and was Impeached and stripped of his license to practice law as a result of his perjury. President Bush has not been charged or convicted of anything.

mike

Alex, no one should be ashamed of their vote, no matter the effect. to not vote, is a different issue.

Alex Magdaleno wrote:

I agree wars cause deficits, but you'll recall that GW promised the tax payers that Iraqi oil money would pay for the after war reconstruction. Now are are buying new cars, trucks and equipment for Iraq while your local government is making do with crap. Any idea what that 400-700 billion would buy for Americans ? We bought a lot of new terrorists in the mid east with that money, but little else. Even Rummy was secretly trying to figure out a way to get us out in a just released memo, at the same time he was telling us a different story.

We all agree that Clinton broke the law by not telling the truth about a blow job to a court, but the war is a little more serious in my opinion. If anyone else had written this memo, some would have jumped all over its content, but it's just a example of saying one thing to us, while believing another.

memo:

"WASHINGTON - Two days before he resigned as defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld submitted a classified memo to the White House that acknowledged that the Bush administration's strategy in Iraq was not working and called for a major course correction.

"In my view it is time for a major adjustment," wrote Rumsfeld, who has been a symbol of a dogged stay-the-course policy. "Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough."

Nor did Rumsfeld seem confident that the administration would readily develop an effective alternative. To limit the political fallout from shifting course, he suggested the administration consider a campaign to lower public expectations.

"Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis," he wrote. "This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not 'lose.' "

"Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) -- go minimalist," he added. Rumsfeld's memo suggests frustration with the pace of turning over responsibility to the Iraqi authorities; in fact, the memo calls for examination of ideas that roughly parallel troop withdrawal proposals presented by some of the White House's sharpest Democratic critics.

The memo's discussi> You need to brush up on history, and to learn how your government works,

Interesting.... Is it true? Not being obtuse or anything, but doesn't it sound strange that Rumsfeld submitted a 'classified' memo 'secretly' and within a few days it is being quoted as gospel on the Internet. Convenient leaks? Maybe... Personally, I wouldn't trust any sources from anywhere within, say...35,000 miles of Washington DC... Jeff

"John Poulos" wrote...

Glad you asked, yes it's real, and no question it was leaked by a person that felt the public should know about it, probably a left wing Commie. "What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive" Here's the administration's response.

When some hooligans ran over my neighbor's mailbox, we discussed options for desigining the mailbox support. One idea: when the bumper knocked over the upright, a buried crossbar would be tipped up under the engine, causing a LOT of damage and possibly stranding the vehicle.

Wonder if there's a way to set that up as a folding strip that stayed locked up until the person running the checkpoint pulled a pin, allowing the uptight to fold down.

You would have to funnel the vehicles overtop of it. Mark (Thinking out loud) Dunning

There is no law against being a dim wit.

Wow.. Must be hard to dance when you shoot yourself in the foot every chance you get, huh? OK, I'll change my stance. (revised quote) Personally, I wouldn't trust any sources from anywhere within, say...34,000 miles of Washington DC... Jeff (not 35,000 as stated earlier ) Rice

"John Poulos" wrote...

You are opening yourself up to lawsuits if you make a mailbox support that can cause injury if struck. One thing that I have seen done (I would NEVER do something like this myself).... is to get a standard sized USPS style mailbox and put it in a large size USPS style mailbox.Then remove the cover of the smaller mailbox and put it inside the larger mailbox...filling the gap with cement. Makes for a mailbox that won't dent easy when the baseball bat hits it on the way by. I have a design for a mailbox that will swing away and return to position that I have built a few of for other people. Works great on roads that get graded a lot, or for roads that get snowplowed in a lot. It's simple, and it works. Let me know and I'll e-mail a drawing of it to you. Jeff

"markshere2" wrote>

No, he has to run a checkpoint for that to happen Jeff

"John Poulos" wrote...