Automating the Car Herds!!

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Cycle America/N, Mar 14, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jack May

    Jack May Guest

    "Robert Haston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Did you ever notice every "alternative" to replace oil, eliminate congestion, etc., always not
    > only preserves the car indefinitely, but
    makes
    > them and/or their system more expensive?

    But not preserving the car and using transit is tens of times more expensive. ITS is tens of times
    cheaper than building roads.

    > But then again why should we expect anything else from the media who gets half their money from
    > car advertising.

    Yea, yea, yea. Everyone except you is just a robot controlled by the media. No one except you has
    independent thoughts.

    > If they didn't, articles such as the following would be common: "Working
    to
    > Drive, Why do we spend more time supporting our cars than we spend driving them?" or "Exercising
    > to work - how the bike is effectively instant and
    free
    > transportation" or "The Soccer Mom - It isn't Soccer or Motherhood, but
    dumb
    > transportation subsidies that created her"

    What your proposing is totally out of touch with the needs of real people.

    >"Why do we spend more "defending" foreign oil than we do buying it? etc. etc. etc.

    Again you are totally out of touch with how our military and intelligence is used.

    Iraq is in 9th place for our supply oil. Afghanistan has a lot oil? Where is the big oil field in
    Pakistan. We fought in the Balkans. Almost no oil there. What we do in Columbia is unrelated to oil.
    Do you think North or South Korea is floating in oil. We have a lot troops in Europe, are they a big
    oil supplier.

    I don't think we have any troops in Russia and they large oil reserves. Similarly we don't have
    troops in Venezuela, Mexico, or Canada our number 3 through 1 suppliers of oil.

    Its almost if there is lot of oil in a country, we don't fight there very often.
     


  2. Jack May wrote:

    >Iraq is in 9th place for our supply oil. Afghanistan has a lot oil? Where is the big oil field in
    >Pakistan. We fought in the Balkans. Almost no oil there. What we do in Columbia is unrelated to
    >oil. Do you think North or South Korea is floating in oil. We have a lot troops in Europe, are they
    >a big oil supplier.

    We're getting off subject with this, but it pertains to current events so why not.

    The current unprovoked attack on Iraq is not, in fact, motivated by oil per se. It's not about
    liberating the Iraqi people. It's not even about WMD. It's about control. It is about Pax Americana.
    Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearle, etc., would like to invade Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, etc., as well,
    but they can't justify it at this time.

    Of course, anyone with any modicre of rationality after 11 September knows that Iraq poses no
    threat to anyone, especially not the United States of America, but the New American Century
    traitors have been able to engender enough fear in the American people by immorally exploiting the
    deaths of all those people in the WTC that Congress abrogated their responsibility to determine
    wheather this nation goes to war, so said rational people are severely limited in our ability to
    stop this madness.

    ----
    Brian Mueller HD USN 24 JAN 03 / Remove hyphens for e-mail
     
  3. Jack May

    Jack May Guest

    "Brian Mueller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > Of course, anyone with any modicre of rationality after 11 September knows that Iraq poses no
    > threat to anyone, especially not the United States of America.

    Well the Arab countries certainly don't believe that. It is maybe a little more correct for the US
    except you are not thinking about possible scenarios where not he, but his stores of WMD's are the
    massive threat.

    He is in a very unstable part of the world with a large supply of WMD's that are extremely
    attractive to terrorist that do not now have the capabilities to produce those WMD's.

    Terrorist can get those WMD's if they kill or over throw Sadam and the key leaders as they did in
    Afghanistan. They have experience and think they know how to do it.

    With the three main religions in Iraq and the religious fanatic that infest that part of the world,
    the terrorist have a power base in the country and Sadam's military. They can pull off at least a
    temporary overthrow before the US regains control.

    That is all it takes. The large number of WMD's would be quickly spread through out the Moslem world
    and we would never be able to find more than a small percentage. The US and other countries would
    then be under continuous attack using the WMD's. The death tolls could be far greater than any
    previous war.

    I assume you realize that this is a likely event and would happen if we attack or don't attack Iraq.
    The only prevention is to remove the WMD's from this very unstable part of the world.
     
  4. "Jack May" wrote:

    >> Of course, anyone with any modicre of rationality after 11 September knows that Iraq poses no
    >> threat to anyone, especially not the United States of America.
    >
    >Well the Arab countries certainly don't believe that.

    They certainly do. The queen (princess?) of Jordan was on NBC saying that Jordan is opposed to this
    war. Turkey had to be bribed with billions of dollars, and still did not vote in favor of it. The
    Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia said that an attack on Iraq would be a "grave mistake" on the part
    of the United States.

    Even the Radical Association of the Women of Afghanistan is opposed to this war; by the logic of the
    warmongers, one would expect that they would be the first people to approve of it. RAWA says that
    women are still treated like shit in Afghanistan, and they imagine that things will not be
    especially different in Iraq.

    >It is maybe a little more correct for the US except you are not thinking about possible scenarios
    >where not he, but his stores of WMD's are the massive threat.

    The CIA says that he would never use those weapons unless he thinks it is the only way for him to
    provide any opposition to a threat. He used them in the 80s at the encouragement of Ronald Reagan.

    Of course, he has no means to deliver said weapons to the United States of America (not counting the
    terrorists to whom he is opposed ideologically).

    >He is in a very unstable part of the world with a large supply of WMD's that are extremely
    >attractive to terrorist that do not now have the capabilities to produce those WMD's.

    He's against fundementalists. See Iran-Iraq war.

    >I assume you realize that this is a likely event and would happen if we attack or don't
    >attack Iraq.

    Not according to the Central Intelligence Agency. According to them, this would ONLY happen in the
    event of an attack on Iraq. That is why I say that our President is a dirty traitor and deserves to
    be in prison.

    ----
    Brian Mueller HD USN 24 JAN 03 / Remove hyphens for e-mail
     
  5. >Not according to the Central Intelligence Agency. According to them, this would ONLY happen in the
    >event of an attack on Iraq. That is why I say that our President is a dirty traitor and deserves to
    >be in prison.

    Whatever. It's too late. The die is cast. Now you'll see the crap hit the fan.

    Pretty exciting times, eh?

    Just try to keep cycling and don't worry about the shit, there isn't anything we can do about it
    except keep our lives in order. If you have a friend or family member in this fight stay cool and
    strong, whatever side.

    If you have a job that needs doing do it, suppress your feelings and do your job. The latest Saddam
    is a body double, I think we got him.

    Victory is at hand. This will cost much less than we supposed.

    --

    _______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
    the Texas Elvis"------------------
    __________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________
     
  6. >I think we got him.

    OK we missed him. But the principles still apply.

    He deviated from his regular commuter route, probably stopped at a Starbucks for a Cappucino, or
    tightened his quick release.

    Next time it's either a bomb or exile, and that's my final offer.

    --

    _______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
    the Texas Elvis"------------------
    __________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________
     
  7. Bluto

    Bluto Guest

    "Eric S. Sande" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Just try to keep cycling and don't worry about the shit, there isn't anything we can do about it
    > except keep our lives in order.
    ...
    > If you have a job that needs doing do it, suppress your feelings and do your job.

    Doing the same things that got us to this point is acting in support of what's happening now.

    Get out in the streets, make a scene! The people said NO and the bastards didn't listen! That is the
    essence and summary of treason.

    Chalo Colina

    Yes, GWB should be tried for treason among other things
     
  8. Bluto

    Bluto Guest

    "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Robert Haston" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >"Why do we spend more "defending" foreign oil than we do buying it? etc. etc. etc.
    >
    > Again you are totally out of touch with how our military and intelligence is used.
    >
    > Iraq is in 9th place for our supply oil. Afghanistan has a lot oil? Where is the big oil field in
    > Pakistan. We fought in the Balkans. Almost no oil there. What we do in Columbia is unrelated to
    > oil. Do you think North or South Korea is floating in oil. We have a lot troops in Europe, are
    > they a big oil supplier.
    >
    > I don't think we have any troops in Russia and they large oil reserves. Similarly we don't have
    > troops in Venezuela, Mexico, or Canada our number 3 through 1 suppliers of oil.
    >
    > Its almost if there is lot of oil in a country, we don't fight there very often.

    But we spend lots beating the crap out of militarily insignificant nations in order to exert control
    over oil producers. Do you think that our treatment of Iraq is lost on Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
    States? That Venezuela hasn't noticed what's going on next door in Colombia, or what happened to
    nearby Panama or Grenada? Do you think the Taliban's refusal to allow an oil pipeline from the
    Caspian Sea was unrelated to the military action in Afghanistan?

    More to the point, do you actually think that freaking Panama or Grenada or Afghanistan posed any
    threat to US national security whatsoever, like Ronnie or George or George Jr. told us they did?

    It's about oil, and keeping power over the supply. Don't let their lies fool you.

    Chalo Colina
     
  9. >Doing the same things that got us to this point is acting in support of what's happening now.

    It's too late, baby. You should have been protesting a month ago.

    >Get out in the streets, make a scene! The people said NO and the bastards didn't listen! That is
    >the essence and summary of treason.

    Damn I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like, victory. Man, I admired that footage
    of the 7th Cav driving toward Baghdad. No problemo, but I wouldn't want to ride my tourer there.

    At least not until they put up a few 7-11s.

    You will notice that everything is under budget and ahead of schedule, we haven't got to the
    massacre of civilians stage, and the Iraqui Army hasn't exactly gotten any backbone yet.

    >Chalo Colina

    Yes, and I agree with you that this war was not necessary. But it is not good form to protest later
    when you could have protested sooner, that is sort of how this process is supposed to work.

    Get over it, I said months ago that this was inevitable and it is actually being done efficiently
    and somewhat economically, as a cyclist I admire efficiency and economy. The Iraqis will actually be
    better off for it, and the Republicans will get to beat their chests and throw another hundred
    billion dollars down a rathole.

    It might tend to increase terrorism, but in fact I'm all ready fed up with terrorism, no matter what
    the source.

    I don't like being manipulated, frightened, and confronted with two bit unexamined ideologies, I'm a
    free citizen of a free country and I reserve the right to judge my leaders and pick my causes. And I
    still ride a French bike and I drink French wine, not at the same time of course.

    By the way, don't imply that I'm a traitor. That makes me really uncomfortable and angry.

    --

    _______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
    the Texas Elvis"------------------
    __________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________
     
  10. Pete

    Pete Guest

  11. Pete <[email protected]> wrote:
    : I have a friend in Saudi now. They call arabnews.com "The Green Lie" Pete

    hey, i never said it was true. it only shows that people are thinking about it. they have a real
    knack for sensationalist headlines, to say the least.

    gotta love those cartoons, tho. apparently kahil died recently.
    --
    david reuteler [email protected]
     
  12. Jack May

    Jack May Guest

    "Bluto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > More to the point, do you actually think that freaking Panama or Grenada or Afghanistan posed any
    > threat to US national security whatsoever, like Ronnie or George or George Jr. told us they did?

    How convenient, everyone is lying about the threats in those countries so no one can disagree with
    your statement.

    You conveniently forget Panama was the center of the drug trade controlled by the Government of
    Panama. You don't want to remember in Grenada we were rescuing the US students there that were in
    risk of being killed.

    You really don't think 9/11 occurred and made us go into Afghanistan to get the ones that did it?

    > It's about oil, and keeping power over the supply. Don't let their lies fool you.

    It is obvious that you are the fool, why should we believe you.
     
  13. Eric S. Sande wrote:

    >>[President clearly should be impeached for the crime of treason against the great nation of the
    >>United Sates of America]
    >Whatever. It's too late. The die is cast. Now you'll see the crap hit the fan.

    Only because Congress won't stand up to their Constitutional obligation to provide a check and
    balance against the power of the President.

    >anything we can do about it except keep our lives in order. If you have a friend or family member
    >in this fight stay cool and strong, whatever side.

    I was in the Navy as a submariner. I'm still against this war and this policy of Pax America.
    Nothing has changed in that regard.

    > This will cost much less than we supposed.

    Not in terms of Don't Tread on Me, which has been American policy for hundreds of years.

    ----
    Brian Mueller HD USN 24 JAN 03 / Remove hyphens for e-mail
     
  14. Eric S. Sande wrote:

    >>I think we got him.
    >
    >OK we missed him. But the principles still apply.

    What principles??? The principle that our policy should be to attack any nation which could
    concievably pose a threat to us in some hypothetical future time? The principle that violating UN
    resolutions automatically justifies war?

    Tell me, sir, what principle applies here.

    ----
    Brian Mueller HD USN 24 JAN 03 / Remove hyphens for e-mail
     
  15. "Jack May" wrote:

    >You conveniently forget Panama was the center of the drug trade controlled by the Government
    >of Panama.

    Indeed. And that was a threat to the national security of the United States of America how?

    >You really don't think 9/11 occurred and made us go into Afghanistan to get the ones that did it?

    I agree with going into Afghanistan, just not in the manner in which it was done. Bombing, etc.

    ----
    Brian Mueller HD USN 24 JAN 03 / Remove hyphens for e-mail
     
  16. >Tell me, sir, what principle applies here.

    You're a little behind the front line of discussion but I'll try to bring you up to speed. As you
    undoubtably ride a bicycle this shouldn't be too hard. My position is that the war is unnecessary
    but as long as we have it we have to deal with it, and its consequences.

    As far as methodology yes, we need to kill the enemy's leaders.

    Doctrinally it's not considered correct to kill the political leaders, because if one does that
    there is no one to negotiate with.

    This administration has made it clear that it does not intend to negotiate.

    This is how empires conduct war. If you want to protest it, you have the right to do so. But it will
    make no difference.

    --

    _______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
    the Texas Elvis"------------------
    __________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________
     
  17. Dane Jackson

    Dane Jackson Guest

    In rec.bicycles.misc Eric S. Sande <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > As far as methodology yes, we need to kill the enemy's leaders.
    >
    > Doctrinally it's not considered correct to kill the political leaders, because if one does that
    > there is no one to negotiate with.

    I always thought it was a recognition that if this was considered a fair tactic for one side, then
    how can it not be a fair tactic for the other?
    i.e. If we talk about killing Saddam Hussein (declaring him a valid military target), then how could
    we complain if a foreign power blows away our Commander in Chief?

    In other words, I always thought it was professional courtesy and a desire not to be a target in
    turn. Is there someplace where the reasoning behind it is spelled out for US policy?

    ObBike: I finally got around to replacing my handlebars [1] and taping them up with some snazzy
    fresh tape [3]. I'm very happy with my first time taping up a set of drop bars.

    [1] They had developed a very annoying creak.[2]
    [2] Yes I cleaned and regreased everything, it was the cheapy kind of bar that had a sleeve over it
    at the stem clamp. Nothing I could do but get a new one.
    [3] The tape had become grotty and one side was basically coming off. I felt so fredly with one of
    my drops covered in duct tape.

    --
    Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g It turned out that the worm exploited
    three or four different holes in the system. From this, and the fact that we were able to capture
    and examine some of the source code, we realized that we were dealing with someone very sharp,
    probably not someone here on campus. -- Dr. Richard LeBlanc, associate professor of ICS, in Georgia
    Tech's campus newspaper after the Internet worm.
     
  18. "Eric S. Sande" wrote:

    >This is how empires conduct war. If you want to protest it, you have the right to do so. But it
    >will make no difference.

    I know my rights, and I intend to countinue to protest.

    Today, some of us brought a set of charges to the Department of Justice representation in San Jose.
    We were told that it was not their jurisdiction and to take it to Ashcroft. At some future time, we
    plan to take our charges to the House of Representitives to demand that this criminal be impeached.

    ----
    Brian Mueller HD USN 24 JAN 03 / Remove hyphens for e-mail
     
  19. Mark Lee

    Mark Lee Guest

    "Brian Mueller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Eric S. Sande" wrote:
    >
    > >This is how empires conduct war. If you want to protest it, you have the right to do so. But it
    > >will make no difference.
    >
    > I know my rights, and I intend to countinue to protest.
    >
    > Today, some of us brought a set of charges to the Department of Justice representation in San
    > Jose. We were told that it was not their jurisdiction and to take it to Ashcroft. At some future
    > time, we plan to take our charges to the House of Representitives to demand that this criminal be
    > impeached.
    >
    >
    That'll work Mark Lee
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...