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



Lorenzo L. Love wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:07:54 -0700, bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Lorenzo L. Love wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 04:12:15 -0700, george conklin <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Lorenzo L. Love" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:eek:p.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 <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dave Head wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:02:59 -0500, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Dave Head <[email protected]> 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 ***** 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, [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Head <[email protected]> writes:
>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:20:44 GMT, bill <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dave Head wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:20:44 GMT, bill <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote in
news:5%[email protected]:

....

>
> Bush would like to mess with the constitution, not on guns, but other
> things, so why not ***** 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 <[email protected]>,
Dave Head <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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
 
wvantwiller wrote:
> bill <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:5%[email protected]:
>
> ...
>
>> Bush would like to mess with the constitution, not on guns, but other
>> things, so why not ***** 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!!


I heard somewhere, can't remember exactly, that he has put us
$3 trillion further in debt. Politicians never talk about reducing the
debt, just reducing the 'deficit', as if people are stupid enough not to
know the difference. Please, tell me they aren't.
Bill Baka
 
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Head <[email protected]> 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?


Sounds good to me.
Bill Baka
 
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:25:48 -0500, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Head <[email protected]> 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?


Shoot any low-life son-of-a-***** that is trying to damage the Constitution.

Dave Head
 
Amusing title but I don't believe in divorce. I could see how it might be alluring though. Divorce my car. Lol Some time ago I planned to move into NYC and a friend of mine said to me the funniest thing. "yeah you could be like nomad" Lol So funny how a different point of view can change the whole perspective. A nomad wandering the streets. Well, maybe with a bike.
 
That is exactly what my dad did. He still owns a car, but it is mostly used when we have to go to the doctor's or to do the shopping. Other than that, dad said goodbye to his car. If he can go alone and do some chores, and he does not need to drag us behind, he would sit on his bike and cycle, no matter how far. He has always been my role model. However, for our neighbours, what he does is pretty perplexing/ They always say, 'Why do you ride a bike, if you have a car?'. They simply do not get the idea behind his biking. He is simply in love with it, and with his bike, and he cares about environment too so he would use the car just in special circumstances. I do not drive, so I am also left to cycling, which again, I love.
 
I'm a bit of a petrol head at heart so there is no way in hell that I would give up my car. I love driving and doing stuff with it too much, and with my bike I love the same things.

I don't see why you can't have both and be happy. I don't think bigamy applies to inanimate objects :D
 
Well, this thread dredge taught me something---Strom Thurmond actually represented Arizona. Silly me thinking all these years it was South Carolina. :D

And it wasn't even JSLose who zombied this. :cool:
 
Well, this thread dredge taught me something---Strom Thurmond actually represented Arizona. Silly me thinking all these years it was South Carolina. :D

And it wasn't even JSLose who zombied this. :cool:

Don't talk about storms!

The North of the UK is slowly being washed away as we speak due to relentless storm after storm after storm. I guess in the great north/south divide it is showing that the south is the superior part of the UK :D
 
Strom, not storm. Strom Thurmond, American politician from the state of South Carolina, who changed political parties almost as often as he changed wives. :D
 
Well, this thread dredge taught me something---Strom Thurmond actually represented Arizona. Silly me thinking all these years it was South Carolina. :D

And it wasn't even JSLose who zombied this. :cool:

It looks like it was.