On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:43:18 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:56:34 +0000 (UTC), PeterLucas >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"MareCat" > wrote in
>> :
>> >
>> >> "PeterLucas" > wrote in message
>> >> 0.25...
>> >>> "MareCat" > wrote in
>> >>> :
>> >>>
>> >>>> "PeterLucas" > wrote in message
>> >>>> .25...
>> >>>>> "MareCat" > wrote in
>> >>>>> :
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> >>>>>> ...
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket and while not
>> >>>>>>> being particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the
>> >>>>>>> direction of a very real threat.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> What threat???
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Go hug a ****ing tree, then go stick your head back in the sand
>> >like
>> >>>>> a good
>> >>>>> little ostrich.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Predictable response...and of course you didn't answer my question.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> No.......... *you* give us all a plausable explanation as to why
>> >there
>> >>> is no threat. And never will be any threat.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm sure the 9-11 victims families would *love* to hear it.
>> >>
>> >> Uh...9-11 had nothing to do with Iraq.
>> >
>> >
>> >You're right. It's got to do with *any* terrorist activity, *anywhere*
>> >in the world that will either directly, or indirectly, affect your
>> >country.
>> >
>> >Isn't that right, leftie?
>> >
>> >
>> >You *are* an American, aren't you?
>> >You *do* love your country, don't you?
>> >You *are* willing to defend your country and your people, aren't you?
>> >
>> >
>> >Or......... do you just want to sit on your arse and bitch and moan
>> >about what you think is right or wrong, and never do anything.
>> >Leave it up to everyone else, hey?
>> >
>>
>> the war on iraq is exacerbating the threat of terrorism, not reducing
>> it.
>
>No, actually it isn't. It may appear that way to the short sighted,
>however what it actually happening is it is drawing the marginal
>terrorists and terrorist supporters out of the woodwork so they can be
>dealt with.
>
>The hornets nest had been growing and the hornets started to venture out
>and attack us. Now that we are fighting back, we've stirred them up and
>we see more coming out of the nest. That doesn't mean our fighting back
>created more of them, just that they are now in the open. Ultimately we
>will destroy all of them.
>
>Pete C.

ultimately? how long do you think this will take? let's see, four
years so far, longer than it took for the nazis - you think maybe
five, ten, fifty or a hundred years? 'grandpa fought in iraq, and now
i'm going over there, too.' you think this is a good idea?

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:51:42 -0400, "MareCat"
> wrote:

>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:56:34 +0000 (UTC), PeterLucas >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"MareCat" > wrote in
om:
>>>
>>>> "PeterLucas" > wrote in message
>>>> 0.25...
>>>>> "MareCat" > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> "PeterLucas" > wrote in message
>>>>>> .25...
>>>>>>> "MareCat" > wrote in
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket and while not
>>>>>>>>> being particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the
>>>>>>>>> direction of a very real threat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What threat???
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Go hug a ****ing tree, then go stick your head back in the sand
>>>like
>>>>>>> a good
>>>>>>> little ostrich.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Predictable response...and of course you didn't answer my question.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No.......... *you* give us all a plausable explanation as to why
>>>there
>>>>> is no threat. And never will be any threat.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure the 9-11 victims families would *love* to hear it.
>>>>
>>>> Uh...9-11 had nothing to do with Iraq.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're right. It's got to do with *any* terrorist activity, *anywhere*
>>>in the world that will either directly, or indirectly, affect your
>>>country.
>>>
>>>Isn't that right, leftie?
>>>
>>>
>>>You *are* an American, aren't you?
>>>You *do* love your country, don't you?
>>>You *are* willing to defend your country and your people, aren't you?
>
>>>Or......... do you just want to sit on your arse and bitch and moan
>>>about what you think is right or wrong, and never do anything.
>>>Leave it up to everyone else, hey?
>>>
>>
>> the war on iraq is exacerbating the threat of terrorism, not reducing
>> it. but thanks for the attacks marecat's patriotism. very insightful
>> and to the point. every patriot should swallow whatever nonsense bush
>> puts out with no chaser. and like it.
>
>But, Blake, doncha know that every good little citizen should blindly follow
>its leaders, regardless of how corrupt and flat-out WRONG they are?? What's
>the matter with you??
>
>I just love it when the righties play the patriotism card (although I didn't
>think it was fashionable to do so anymore). In their minds, if anyone
>disagrees with the administration, they MUST be anti-American. Smacks of
>Hitler. It's pretty scary, actually.
>
>Wonder if they have Fox News down in Oz? I'm beginning to think so.
>
>Mary
>

i wouldn't doubt it. that's where rupert murdoch is from.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:30:48 GMT, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>MareCat wrote:
>>
>> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:56:34 +0000 (UTC), PeterLucas >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>"MareCat" > wrote in
>> m:
>> >>
>> >>> "PeterLucas" > wrote in message
>> >>> 0.25...
>> >>>> "MareCat" > wrote in
>> >>>> :
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> "PeterLucas" > wrote in message
>> >>>>> .25...
>> >>>>>> "MareCat" > wrote in
>> >>>>>> :
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> >>>>>>> ...
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket and while not
>> >>>>>>>> being particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the
>> >>>>>>>> direction of a very real threat.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> What threat???
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Go hug a ****ing tree, then go stick your head back in the sand
>> >>like
>> >>>>>> a good
>> >>>>>> little ostrich.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Predictable response...and of course you didn't answer my question.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> No.......... *you* give us all a plausable explanation as to why
>> >>there
>> >>>> is no threat. And never will be any threat.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'm sure the 9-11 victims families would *love* to hear it.
>> >>>
>> >>> Uh...9-11 had nothing to do with Iraq.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>You're right. It's got to do with *any* terrorist activity, *anywhere*
>> >>in the world that will either directly, or indirectly, affect your
>> >>country.
>> >>
>> >>Isn't that right, leftie?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>You *are* an American, aren't you?
>> >>You *do* love your country, don't you?
>> >>You *are* willing to defend your country and your people, aren't you?
>>
>> >>Or......... do you just want to sit on your arse and bitch and moan
>> >>about what you think is right or wrong, and never do anything.
>> >>Leave it up to everyone else, hey?
>> >>
>> >
>> > the war on iraq is exacerbating the threat of terrorism, not reducing
>> > it. but thanks for the attacks marecat's patriotism. very insightful
>> > and to the point. every patriot should swallow whatever nonsense bush
>> > puts out with no chaser. and like it.
>>
>> But, Blake, doncha know that every good little citizen should blindly follow
>> its leaders, regardless of how corrupt and flat-out WRONG they are?? What's
>> the matter with you??
>>
>> I just love it when the righties play the patriotism card (although I didn't
>> think it was fashionable to do so anymore). In their minds, if anyone
>> disagrees with the administration, they MUST be anti-American. Smacks of
>> Hitler. It's pretty scary, actually.
>>
>> Wonder if they have Fox News down in Oz? I'm beginning to think so.
>>
>> Mary
>
>It's sad how people like you will accuse people who disagree with you of
>blindly following the administration i.e. Bush. I don't agree with
>99.999% of what the administration does, but suddenly I'm blindly
>following them because I don't agree with you on the terrorist threat.
>
>Sorry babe, it doesn't work that way. I look at all the facts and make
>my own assessments, I don't blindly follow anyone, not Bush, nor anyone
>else on the "right" or "left". I'd be more than happy to shit can Bush
>and company and of course Bush is going away anyway, but looking at the
>current field of potential replacements I'm not seeing anyone who looks
>like they really have a grasp on what needs to be done, either about
>terrorism, deteriorating US infrastructure, deteriorating US education,
>growing energy issues, or much of anything else.
>
>All I see these days are an extreme "left" and an extreme "right" who
>are blindly focused on trying to attack and undermine each other while
>the country crumbles around them. The ultimate problem is the majority
>of the population is quite centrist, but we're only being given a choice
>of two extremes.
>
>Pete C.

Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:40PM EDT

A USA Today/Gallup poll this week showed more than seven in 10
Americans favor withdrawing nearly all U.S. troops by April, and
several surveys show the approval ratings for Bush, a Republican, are
at the lows of his presidency.

<http://www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSN12233089._CH_.2400>

so, this must mean seventy percent of americans are extreme leftists.
coulda fooled me.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:58:22 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:55:17 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Dave Smith wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Pete C." wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket and while not being
>> >> > particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the direction of a
>> >> > very real threat. A good chunk of our tax dollars are being wasted on
>> >> > well intentioned but counterproductive "humanitarian aid". The largest
>> >> > portion of our tax dollars however are being wasted right here in the
>> >> > US.
>> >>
>> >> Pray tell.... what threat is that? The administration admitted that there
>> >> was no link between Iraq and 9/11.
>> >
>> >They didn't initially claim one either.
>> >
>>
>> this is total bullshit.
>
>No, it isn't. It was a misguided attempt to use the very limited
>contacts between AQ and Saddam's cronies to distract from the fact that
>WMDs hadn't been found, rather than point out the fact that Saddam had
>years to hide the WMDs while Clinton and the UN had their heads in the
>sand.
>

that there was no basis in fact that hussein and al queda does not
negate that the administration did not make that claim, vociferously.
you say they did not. that's bullshit.

>>
>> >> They also admitted that there turned out
>> >> to be no WMDs, just as the weapons inspectors had reported.
>> >
>> >Entirely false. The WMDs are indeed still MIA, however they were indeed
>> >found and inventoried by the UN UNSCOM inspectors. The inventoried WMDs
>> >went MIA some time in the decade that passed after Saddam threw out
>> >those inspectors. The fact that they can not now be located in no way
>> >disproves their existence.
>> >
>>
>> jeez, they couldn't possibly have been destroyed, could they?
>
>Yes, there is a slim possibility that Saddam actually did complete the
>destruction of the WMDs after he kicked out the UN teams that had
>destroying them. Given Saddam's well known honesty, or lack there of and
>the fact that he kicked out the UN teams, the probability the he was
>suddenly telling the truth about the WMDs is infinitely small.
>
>>
>> >> After
>> >> dismissing the advice of numbers security advisors that there were no WMDs
>> >> and that invading Iraq was a bad idea, Bush found people to tell him what
>> >> he wanted them to say and went ahead. Iraq was no threat to the US. The
>> >> biggest threat to the US seems to be sitting in the Oval Office.
>> >
>> >If that's what you believe, you are part of the biggest threat to the
>> >US.
>> >
>>
>> yeah, i think i saw dave down at the bus station armed with box
>> cutters. call homeland security!
>
>You really are pathetic. Anyone who disagrees with your leftist
>propaganda must be some mindless Bush supporter... yea, right... I've
>never supported Bush, I think the is a superstitious wing nut. Your
>leftist candidates who believe we can somehow negotiate a peace with the
>terrorists however are a true threat to the US and ultimately global
>civilization. Just look at history in the middle east and count all the
>times the violent dysfunctional cultures over there have honored any
>peace agreement - no fingers needed.
>
>Pete C.

i don't know and don't care what you think of bush's other policies.
i'm saying his war on iraq was based on bullshit and you've lapped it
up like cream.

your pal,
blake

lake murphy wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:13:21 GMT, Reg > wrote:
>
>>"Footings" is probably the term I should have used.
>>
>>I think there's a reasonable chance one may have come down as a result
>>of bridge scour, similar to the Schoharie Creek incident in 1987.
>>This caused a progressive collapse.
>>
>>Another possible cause is structural failure due to metal fatigue.
>>
>>In any case, the design lacked sufficient redundancy to
>>prevent a progressive collapse. One piece falls, causing them
>>all to go down. Such older designs require stricter inspection
>>and maintenance, which it appears didn't happen in this case.
>
>
> on the contrary, it was inspected at least twice and found
> 'structurally deficient.' they just didn't fix it.


On the contrary?


You mean the bridge actually *DID* get stricter inspection
and maintenance?

I don't think that's what you really mean.

--
Reg

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 08:13:35 -0700, "<RJ>" >
wrote:

>On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 08:24:51 -0500, "jmcquown" > wrote:
>
>><RJ> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 23:58:43 -0500, "jmcquown"
>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ... so very sad, that some people are doing the very thing they've
>>>> been railing against in this thread - suddenly ignoring the bridge
>>>> collapse, the tragedy of the injured, the casualties and their
>>>> grieving families and friends. Instead it's been turned into a
>>>> *rabid* political debate. (sigh)
>>>>
>>>> Jill
>>>>
>>>
>>> When bad things happen, it's natural to speculate;
>>> "What caused this, how could it have been prevented"
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, Washington HAS been pre-occupied with
>>> Iraq, and Afghanistan.
>>>
>>> And too many serious issues in America have gone unfunded, or
>>> untended.
>>>
>>
>>Even if the U.S. were not involved with foreign politics the bridge still
>>would have collapsed. There's always going to be something with a "higher
>>priority" than re-vamping every bridge in the country. They were
>>resurfacing the bridge so money was at least being spent for *something* on
>>it. I think it was a matter of possible design flaw and, as Sheldon
>>mentioned, sub-standard materials being used during initial construction.
>>He's absolutely right when he says many construction projects are not built
>>to the original specs; substandard materials keep the contractor's costs
>>down.
>>
>I'd believe that of New York, Pennsylvania, Mass. ( and New Orleans )
>East-coast politicians have a long history of graft, corruption and theft.
>
>Minnesotans don't steal public money.... they waste it !
>I'd lean more toward the bridge braces made of platinum, rather than steel.
>
>
><rj>

i think you're right, r.j. except maybe the 'wasting' part. i did
read somewhere where the minn. governor had signed grover norquist's
'no new taxes' pledge, though. frankly, i'd rather take my political
cues from grover on sesame street...

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 02:39:29 +0000 (UTC), PeterLucas >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Dave Smith > wrote in
> :
>
> >> You take the hub out, the spokes fall out, and the
> >>> rim falls off. If you just take the rim out, it can be replaced.
>
> >>> Comprende?
>
> >> Sorry, but that is a stupid analogy. If you take away the rim the
> >> spokes fly around. Spokes, hubs and rims can all be replaced.
>
> >Yeah, right, whatever.
>
> >You just keep running around in circles and convincing yourself that you're
> >the only one that's right.
>
> he doesn't have to be the only one who is right to show that you are
> wrong. and you are.



About the best that can be said about PeterBREATH L. is: "You are
megalomaniac, the worst kind, because you're a monstrous and perverted
idiot...".

:-)


--
Best
Greg

On Aug 2, 3:43 pm, "Pete C." > wrote:
> blake murphy wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:56:34 +0000 (UTC), PeterLucas >
> > wrote:
>
> > >"MareCat" > wrote in
> > :
>
> > >> "PeterLucas" > wrote in message
> > . 230.25...
> > >>> "MareCat" > wrote in
> > om:
>
> > >>>> "PeterLucas" > wrote in message
> > .230.25...
> > >>>>> "MareCat" > wrote in
> > >>>>>news:MuCdnUGVSs8ZbSzbnZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@comcast .com:
>
> > >>>>>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > >>>>>>> The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket and while not
> > >>>>>>> being particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the
> > >>>>>>> direction of a very real threat.
>
> > >>>>>> What threat???
>
> > >>>>> Go hug a ****ing tree, then go stick your head back in the sand
> > >like
> > >>>>> a good
> > >>>>> little ostrich.
>
> > >>>> Predictable response...and of course you didn't answer my question.
>
> > >>> No.......... *you* give us all a plausable explanation as to why
> > >there
> > >>> is no threat. And never will be any threat.
>
> > >>> I'm sure the 9-11 victims families would *love* to hear it.
>
> > >> Uh...9-11 had nothing to do with Iraq.
>
> > >You're right. It's got to do with *any* terrorist activity, *anywhere*
> > >in the world that will either directly, or indirectly, affect your
> > >country.
>
> > >Isn't that right, leftie?
>
> > >You *are* an American, aren't you?
> > >You *do* love your country, don't you?
> > >You *are* willing to defend your country and your people, aren't you?
>
> > >Or......... do you just want to sit on your arse and bitch and moan
> > >about what you think is right or wrong, and never do anything.
> > >Leave it up to everyone else, hey?
>
> > the war on iraq is exacerbating the threat of terrorism, not reducing
> > it.
>
> No, actually it isn't. It may appear that way to the short sighted,
> however what it actually happening is it is drawing the marginal
> terrorists and terrorist supporters out of the woodwork so they can be
> dealt with.

Does Dien Bien Phu ring a bell?

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

On Aug 3, 9:24 am, "jmcquown" > wrote:
> <RJ> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 23:58:43 -0500, "jmcquown"
> > > wrote:
>
> >> ... so very sad, that some people are doing the very thing they've
> >> been railing against in this thread - suddenly ignoring the bridge
> >> collapse, the tragedy of the injured, the casualties and their
> >> grieving families and friends. Instead it's been turned into a
> >> *rabid* political debate. (sigh)
>
> >> Jill
>
> > When bad things happen, it's natural to speculate;
> > "What caused this, how could it have been prevented"
>
> > Unfortunately, Washington HAS been pre-occupied with
> > Iraq, and Afghanistan.
>
> > And too many serious issues in America have gone unfunded, or
> > untended.
>
> Even if the U.S. were not involved with foreign politics the bridge still
> would have collapsed. There's always going to be something with a "higher
> priority" than re-vamping every bridge in the country. They were
> resurfacing the bridge so money was at least being spent for *something* on
> it. I think it was a matter of possible design flaw and, as Sheldon
> mentioned, sub-standard materials being used during initial construction.
> He's absolutely right when he says many construction projects are not built
> to the original specs; substandard materials keep the contractor's costs
> down.

It also may depend on how old the bridge was. If it was built 40
years ago there was a lot about stressed concrete that people did not
know about especially interactions with salt!.
Also if I remember correctly the US Federal Gov't funded construction
of the Interstates but not the maintaince so if the states were cash-
strapped then mantaince might sufferer. BTW was not that bridge
linking two states? Just ideal for a nice bureaucratic war over which
state pays the bills

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

jmcquown wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:
>> "Sheldon" > wrote
>>
>>> On Aug 3, 8:08?am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>>>> I think the design of this particular bridge played a big role. 40
>>>> years is not old for a bridge.
>>> More than mechanical design probably inferior grade steel. I'd bet
>>> my bipee when/if the original specs are checked against what's
>>> actually there they'll find a lesser grade of steel than what was
>>> called out... likely not in error, more at typical construction
>>> project graft. The powers that be covered it up then, ditto now.
>> When I looked at the before picture I thought, what, were toothpicks
>> not available? Looked like Tinker Toys. Of course, I'm not an
>> engineer, and steel is deceptively strong. Apparently not *that*
>> strong.
>>
> When I was dating Ray he was a construction superintendant. He said
> government contracts were the *worse* because the contractor was forced to
> lowball the bid to win the contract, then try to do the work using quality
> materials and not go over cost. Obviously many contractors don't adhere to
> the original specs; rather, as Sheldon says, they use inferior and hence
> cheaper materials to get the job done. Go over cost and they're not likely
> to get another big government contract. Big catch 22 at the expense of
> safety.
>
<snip>
> Jill
>
>

Either Ray is an idiot or you were drunk at the time (or both). A
contract is a contract. If they "go over cost" they eat it. They don't
pass it on to the government and they wouldn't be at risk of not getting
another government job.

Stick to cooking Hot Pockets (or whatever is on sale).

Dan

John Kane wrote:
> On Aug 3, 9:24 am, "jmcquown" > wrote:
>> Even if the U.S. were not involved with foreign politics the bridge
>> still would have collapsed. There's always going to be something
>> with a "higher priority" than re-vamping every bridge in the
>> country. They were resurfacing the bridge so money was at least
>> being spent for *something* on it. I think it was a matter of
>> possible design flaw and, as Sheldon mentioned, sub-standard
>> materials being used during initial construction. He's absolutely
>> right when he says many construction projects are not built to the
>> original specs; substandard materials keep the contractor's costs
>> down.
>
> It also may depend on how old the bridge was. If it was built 40
> years ago there was a lot about stressed concrete that people did not
> know about especially interactions with salt!.
> Also if I remember correctly the US Federal Gov't funded construction
> of the Interstates but not the maintaince so if the states were cash-
> strapped then mantaince might sufferer. BTW was not that bridge
> linking two states? Just ideal for a nice bureaucratic war over which
> state pays the bills
>
> John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

No, it linked two *cities* in Minnesota divided by the Mississippi River.

Jill

Dan wrote:
>
>
> Either Ray is an idiot or you were drunk at the time (or both). A
> contract is a contract. If they "go over cost" they eat it. They don't
> pass it on to the government and they wouldn't be at risk of not getting
> another government job.

Around here, companies bidding on government contracts have to submit a
fitness report to show they are capable of performing the job. If they bid
too low they eat the loss. I have never heard of a case where that has
happened.

Dave Smith wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>>
>> Either Ray is an idiot or you were drunk at the time (or both). A
>> contract is a contract. If they "go over cost" they eat it. They don't
>> pass it on to the government and they wouldn't be at risk of not getting
>> another government job.
>
> Around here, companies bidding on government contracts have to submit a
> fitness report to show they are capable of performing the job. If they bid
> too low they eat the loss. I have never heard of a case where that has
> happened.

It's called a bond. They have to put up the bucks to show that they
have the capital to finish the job - on time.

Dan

Dave Smith wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>>
>>
>> Either Ray is an idiot or you were drunk at the time (or both). A
>> contract is a contract. If they "go over cost" they eat it. They
>> don't pass it on to the government and they wouldn't be at risk of
>> not getting another government job.
>
> Around here, companies bidding on government contracts have to submit
> a fitness report to show they are capable of performing the job. If
> they bid too low they eat the loss. I have never heard of a case
> where that has happened.

Which rather proves my point. They use substandard materials so they don't
go over cost and can win the next big government contract by lowballing the
bid.

I see "Dan" (whoever the hell he is) has elected himself my new Steve Wertz.
He apparently didn't read my post. I said they have to low-ball the bids to
win the contract then try to get the work done with quality materials so
they don't go over budget. I *never* said the government would pay for the
overages. Dude can't read, obviously.

Jill

John Kane wrote:
>
> It also may depend on how old the bridge was. If it was built 40
> years ago there was a lot about stressed concrete that people did not
> know about especially interactions with salt!.

The salt leeches through the concrete and gets into the reinforcing rods.
Eventually the rebars start to rust, and when they rust they expand causing
spalling.... concrete flaking off. However, I don't think this collapse
was a result of that sort of process. It appeared to be more a matter of
the steel structure giving way under the weight of the concrete deck.


> Also if I remember correctly the US Federal Gov't funded construction
> of the Interstates but not the maintaince so if the states were cash-
> strapped then mantaince might sufferer. BTW was not that bridge
> linking two states? Just ideal for a nice bureaucratic war over which
> state pays the bills

It is likely the same system that we have here in Canada. Various
jurisdictions are responsible for road maintenance for their own roads, but
each jurisdiction filters the money down in a network of grant systems. For
instance, here in Ontario, my town has its own roads to maintain, the
regional municipality has its roads to maintain and the province is
responsible for the highways. The province gets some money from the federal
government. The regional municipality gets money from the province and
shuffles some of it down to the town. There is a vast bureaucracy that
exists to pass the money back and forth and a lot of politicking going on
to see who gets how much.

jmcquown wrote:
>
>
> > It also may depend on how old the bridge was. If it was built 40
> > years ago there was a lot about stressed concrete that people did not
> > know about especially interactions with salt!.
> > Also if I remember correctly the US Federal Gov't funded construction
> > of the Interstates but not the maintaince so if the states were cash-
> > strapped then mantaince might sufferer. BTW was not that bridge
> > linking two states? Just ideal for a nice bureaucratic war over which
> > state pays the bills
> >
> > John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
>
> No, it linked two *cities* in Minnesota divided by the Mississippi River.

If I am reading the map correctly, it connects two parts of the city of
Minneapolis, the part on the east side of the Mississippi and the part on
the west. It also connects Minnesota to Iowa, making it an interstate.




> Jill

jmcquown wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>>
>>> Either Ray is an idiot or you were drunk at the time (or both). A
>>> contract is a contract. If they "go over cost" they eat it. They
>>> don't pass it on to the government and they wouldn't be at risk of
>>> not getting another government job.
>> Around here, companies bidding on government contracts have to submit
>> a fitness report to show they are capable of performing the job. If
>> they bid too low they eat the loss. I have never heard of a case
>> where that has happened.
>
> Which rather proves my point. They use substandard materials so they don't
> go over cost and can win the next big government contract by lowballing the
> bid.
>
> I see "Dan" (whoever the hell he is) has elected himself my new Steve Wertz.
> He apparently didn't read my post. I said they have to low-ball the bids to
> win the contract then try to get the work done with quality materials so
> they don't go over budget. I *never* said the government would pay for the
> overages. Dude can't read, obviously.
>
> Jill
>
>

The "dude" can read very well. You just have to include the insane
text. Read it again:

<Begin moronic quote>
When I was dating Ray he was a construction superintendant <sic>. He
said government contracts were the *worse* <sic> because the contractor
was forced to low ball the bid to win the contract, then try to do the
work using quality materials and not go over cost. Obviously many
contractors don't adhere to the original specs; rather, as Sheldon says,
they use inferior and hence cheaper materials to get the job done. Go
over cost and they're not likely to get another big government contract.
Big catch 22 at the expense of safety.
<End the uneducated quote>

OK, Jill. You said that if they go "over cost" "they're not likely to
get another big government contract". That would mean that the
government wouldn't give them another contract because they were over
budget, right? The government is paying a fixed, contracted, price so
they don't care what it costs to do the job. Remember, you said "get"
not "want". So who would pay for the excess/"overages", Jill?

Dan




Now why would that be an issue if the government was paying a contracted
price and nothing more?

jmcquown wrote:
>
> > Around here, companies bidding on government contracts have to submit
> > a fitness report to show they are capable of performing the job. If
> > they bid too low they eat the loss. I have never heard of a case
> > where that has happened.
>
> Which rather proves my point. They use substandard materials so they don't
> go over cost and can win the next big government contract by lowballing the
> bid.

Things have changed since I was more involved in it. The government
engineers used to design and spec the projects and contractors bid
accordingly. We always had inspectors on the job. They had to watch them
every step of the way. Then there was a 5 year warranty. Thanks to trickle
down conservatism, we inherited a more right wing approach whose agenda
dictated that private business can do things quicker, cheaper and more
efficiently than government. So they laid off most of our construction
staff. Now the government tells them what they want and the contractors
come up with the design, the specs and they do all the work themselves,
including the inspections.... and the guarantee period dropped to 2
years. That is a little less than the time it takes for improper tamping
of fill material and inadequate gravel bedding to start to show.

> I see "Dan" (whoever the hell he is) has elected himself my new Steve Wertz.
> He apparently didn't read my post. I said they have to low-ball the bids to
> win the contract then try to get the work done with quality materials so
> they don't go over budget.

The job usually goes to the cheapest bidder. In theory, there is
competition to ensure the government gets the best price. In reality, there
are a limited number of companies that can handle major construction jobs.
Most of them are busy all the time, and it is pretty well accepted that
there is some collusion. They get together and decide who gets which job
and they bid accordingly. Our highway winter maintenance started to be
completely contracted a number of years ago. There were only four
companies around who could handle it. They simply got together and decided
which company would take each region and adjusted their bids accordingly.



> I *never* said the government would pay for the
> overages. Dude can't read, obviously.

We sometimes digress here. :-)

On Aug 3, 8:31?pm, "jmcquown" > wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
> > Dan wrote:
>
> >> Either Ray is an idiot or you were drunk at the time (or both). A
> >> contract is a contract. If they "go over cost" they eat it. They
> >> don't pass it on to the government and they wouldn't be at risk of
> >> not getting another government job.
>
> > Around here, companies bidding on government contracts have to submit
> > a fitness report to show they are capable of performing the job. If
> > they bid too low they eat the loss. I have never heard of a case
> > where that has happened.
>
> Which rather proves my point. They use substandard materials so they don't
> go over cost and can win the next big government contract by lowballing the
> bid.
>
> I see "Dan" (whoever the hell he is) has elected himself my new Steve Wertz.
> He apparently didn't read my post. I said they have to low-ball the bids to
> win the contract then try to get the work done with quality materials so
> they don't go over budget. I *never* said the government would pay for the
> overages. Dude can't read, obviously.

They didn't read the word "graft" either... gotta be very naive to
think the construction/politico businesses are honest.

Sheldon Payola-Greasypalm-Underthetable

Dave Smith wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>> It also may depend on how old the bridge was. If it was built 40
>>> years ago there was a lot about stressed concrete that people did not
>>> know about especially interactions with salt!.
>>> Also if I remember correctly the US Federal Gov't funded construction
>>> of the Interstates but not the maintaince so if the states were cash-
>>> strapped then mantaince might sufferer. BTW was not that bridge
>>> linking two states? Just ideal for a nice bureaucratic war over which
>>> state pays the bills
>>>
>>> John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
>> No, it linked two *cities* in Minnesota divided by the Mississippi River.
>
> If I am reading the map correctly, it connects two parts of the city of
> Minneapolis, the part on the east side of the Mississippi and the part on
> the west. It also connects Minnesota to Iowa, making it an interstate.
>
>
>
>
>> Jill

You are correct and Jill, once again, is wrong. I lived there...

Dan

On 2007-08-04, Dave Smith > wrote:

> accordingly. We always had inspectors on the job.

....even after corp/union thugs came around threatening inspector's
families lives unless it passed.....

> and they bid accordingly......

.....until the govt just started handing out contracts based on custom
tailored specs or simply no bidding at all , i.e. Halliburton,
etc......

nb

blake murphy > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 02:39:29 +0000 (UTC), PeterLucas >
> wrote:
>
>>Dave Smith > wrote in
:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> You take the hub out, the spokes fall out, and the
>>>> rim falls off. If you just take the rim out, it can be replaced.
>>>>
>>>> Comprende?
>>>
>>> Sorry, but that is a stupid analogy. If you take away the rim the
>>> spokes fly around. Spokes, hubs and rims can all be replaced.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Yeah, right, whatever.
>>
>>You just keep running around in circles and convincing yourself that
>>you're the only one that's right.
>
> he doesn't have to be the only one who is right to show that you are
> wrong. and you are.
>
> your pal,
> blake
>


Would you like a tissue for that brown nose of yours?



--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

"People sleep safely in their beds because rough men stand ready in
the night to do violence to those who would do them harm"
-- George Orwell

blake murphy > wrote in
:


>
> what i don't 'comprende' is why we attacked iraq when none of the
> hijackers were from there, nor were they trained there. but that made
> no never-mind to 'hit 'em where they ain't' bush.
>


So why are you 4-F?


Lack of heartlidge?

--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

"People sleep safely in their beds because rough men stand ready in
the night to do violence to those who would do them harm"
-- George Orwell

John Kane > wrote in
ups.com:


>>
>> No, actually it isn't. It may appear that way to the short sighted,
>> however what it actually happening is it is drawing the marginal
>> terrorists and terrorist supporters out of the woodwork so they can
>> be dealt with.
>
> Does Dien Bien Phu ring a bell?


Only in your stunted little mind.


this is *2007* John Kane......... not ****ing 1954.



>
> John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
>
>


Can you guy *please* become a Republic?? You're an embarassment to the
rest of the Commonwealth.

Or maybe, it's just you?


--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

"People sleep safely in their beds because rough men stand ready in
the night to do violence to those who would do them harm"
-- George Orwell

PeterLucas wrote:
>
> > what i don't 'comprende' is why we attacked iraq when none of the
> > hijackers were from there, nor were they trained there. but that made
> > no never-mind to 'hit 'em where they ain't' bush.
> >
>
> So why are you 4-F?
>
> Lack of heartlidge?

Perhaps too bright to enrol in the service of a county where he would be
expected to blindly obey the orders of liars and incompetents.

jmcquown wrote:

> When I was dating Ray he was a construction superintendant. He said
> government contracts were the *worse* because the contractor was forced to
> lowball the bid to win the contract, then try to do the work using quality
> materials and not go over cost. Obviously many contractors don't adhere to
> the original specs; rather, as Sheldon says, they use inferior and hence
> cheaper materials to get the job done. Go over cost and they're not likely
> to get another big government contract. Big catch 22 at the expense of
> safety.

Steel is usually inspected at the factory. It has to meet certain standards
and is generally stamped or tagged with the quality approval. It is usually
the type of fill on the approaches, gravel size and dust components,
compaction of fill on ramps and approaches where contractors scrimp for bi
savings. Every load of fill they bring in costs money, and because it is
wet and lumpy it needs to be compacted. Our inspectors had to watch and
ensure that they were bringing in the right type of material and that it
was being compacted properly. Otherwise, it would settle over time and the
road surfaces drops and asphalt breaks up. Then there is the asphalt and
the concrete. Our inspectors used to take a sample of every load that that
came in and test it to make sure it had the right particulate matter and
binders.


Contractors take big chances when using substandard materials, especially
in litigation prone societies like the US. The failure of a major structure
like a bridge can lead to multi million dollar law suits. Bear in mind that
the Minneapolis bridge had been standing for 40 years. I read something
about a bearing failure. Bridges are built to move on bearings. As the air
temperature rises and falls the bridge material expands and contracts quite
a bit. They also move a lot with the wind and bounce up and down with the
traffic. If you have ever been standing on a large bridge you would realize
how much they move. They are supposed to. If the bearings seize up they
cannot move and the incredible stresses can cause something to snap.

FWIW, I heard something on the news today that one section of the bridge
was displaced several meters to one side, which indicated that there was
some force twisting it.




>
> They did a news report about the bridges over the Mississippi River from
> Memphis to Arkansas shortly after the MN/St. Paul collapse. I always get
> nervous driving over the main Memphis/Arkansas bridge. The river is a lot
> deeper and a lot wider here than up in Minneapolis. The news report
> indicated they are inspected every two years. Since we are located on the
> New Madrid fault, the bridges were built (or upgraded) to withstand a level
> 8 on the Richter scale earthquake. I guess that's supposed to be comforting
>
>
> Jill

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...

> FWIW, I heard something on the news today that one section of the bridge
> was displaced several meters to one side, which indicated that there was
> some force twisting it.
>

If you look at the pictures you can see the twist on one end of the bridge.
The steel went one way and the decking went the other way. The rest of it
collapsed straight down.


Ms P

Ms P wrote:
>
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > FWIW, I heard something on the news today that one section of the bridge
> > was displaced several meters to one side, which indicated that there was
> > some force twisting it.
> >
>
> If you look at the pictures you can see the twist on one end of the bridge.
> The steel went one way and the decking went the other way. The rest of it
> collapsed straight down.

I am not sure that I agree with that report's assessment that the lateral
displacement indicates there had been some twisting of the structure. Since
it is likely the that initial failure occurred in one spot and that things
would tall in that direction first. Immediately upon that initial failure
the rest of it went tumbling down. But what do I know. I wasn't there and I
am not a structural engineer.

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:20:17 -0700, Reg > wrote:

>lake murphy wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:13:21 GMT, Reg > wrote:
>>
>>>"Footings" is probably the term I should have used.
>>>
>>>I think there's a reasonable chance one may have come down as a result
>>>of bridge scour, similar to the Schoharie Creek incident in 1987.
>>>This caused a progressive collapse.
>>>
>>>Another possible cause is structural failure due to metal fatigue.
>>>
>>>In any case, the design lacked sufficient redundancy to
>>>prevent a progressive collapse. One piece falls, causing them
>>>all to go down. Such older designs require stricter inspection
>>>and maintenance, which it appears didn't happen in this case.
>>
>>
>> on the contrary, it was inspected at least twice and found
>> 'structurally deficient.' they just didn't fix it.
>
>
>On the contrary?
>
>
>You mean the bridge actually *DID* get stricter inspection
>and maintenance?
>
>I don't think that's what you really mean.

yeah, that kinda looked fishy even as i posted it. how about 'half on
the contrary'? the did the inspections but not enough maintenance.

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:24:35 -0700, John Kane >
wrote:

>On Aug 2, 3:43 pm, "Pete C." > wrote:
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:56:34 +0000 (UTC), PeterLucas >
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > >"MareCat" > wrote in
>> > :
>>
>> > >> "PeterLucas" > wrote in message
>> > . 230.25...
>> > >>> "MareCat" > wrote in
>> > om:
>>
>> > >>>> "PeterLucas" > wrote in message
>> > .230.25...
>> > >>>>> "MareCat" > wrote in
>> > >>>>>news:MuCdnUGVSs8ZbSzbnZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@comcast .com:
>>
>> > >>>>>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> > ...
>>
>> > >>>>>>> The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket and while not
>> > >>>>>>> being particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the
>> > >>>>>>> direction of a very real threat.
>>
>> > >>>>>> What threat???
>>
>> > >>>>> Go hug a ****ing tree, then go stick your head back in the sand
>> > >like
>> > >>>>> a good
>> > >>>>> little ostrich.
>>
>> > >>>> Predictable response...and of course you didn't answer my question.
>>
>> > >>> No.......... *you* give us all a plausable explanation as to why
>> > >there
>> > >>> is no threat. And never will be any threat.
>>
>> > >>> I'm sure the 9-11 victims families would *love* to hear it.
>>
>> > >> Uh...9-11 had nothing to do with Iraq.
>>
>> > >You're right. It's got to do with *any* terrorist activity, *anywhere*
>> > >in the world that will either directly, or indirectly, affect your
>> > >country.
>>
>> > >Isn't that right, leftie?
>>
>> > >You *are* an American, aren't you?
>> > >You *do* love your country, don't you?
>> > >You *are* willing to defend your country and your people, aren't you?
>>
>> > >Or......... do you just want to sit on your arse and bitch and moan
>> > >about what you think is right or wrong, and never do anything.
>> > >Leave it up to everyone else, hey?
>>
>> > the war on iraq is exacerbating the threat of terrorism, not reducing
>> > it.
>>
>> No, actually it isn't. It may appear that way to the short sighted,
>> however what it actually happening is it is drawing the marginal
>> terrorists and terrorist supporters out of the woodwork so they can be
>> dealt with.
>
>Does Dien Bien Phu ring a bell?
>
>John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

no fair talking about vietnam! that was a completely different
quagmire, er, war. the neocons don't have to dodge the draft for this
one.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 14:47:55 +0000 (UTC), PeterLucas >
wrote:

>blake murphy > wrote in
:
>
>
>>
>> what i don't 'comprende' is why we attacked iraq when none of the
>> hijackers were from there, nor were they trained there. but that made
>> no never-mind to 'hit 'em where they ain't' bush.
>>
>
>
>So why are you 4-F?
>
>
>Lack of heartlidge?

what does this have to do with anything? for one thing, i'm 55. but
if the war continues to be so wildly successful, maybe they'll adjust
the age upwards to that.

your pal, blake

On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 10:58:55 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>PeterLucas wrote:
>>
>> > what i don't 'comprende' is why we attacked iraq when none of the
>> > hijackers were from there, nor were they trained there. but that made
>> > no never-mind to 'hit 'em where they ain't' bush.
>> >
>>
>> So why are you 4-F?
>>
>> Lack of heartlidge?
>
>Perhaps too bright to enrol in the service of a county where he would be
>expected to blindly obey the orders of liars and incompetents.

there is that. i'll guess i'll laugh out of the other side of my
mouth when the dreaded brown islamofascists come over here and slit my
throat.

your pal,
blake

On Aug 4, 10:54 am, PeterLucas > wrote:
> John Kane > wrote roups.com:
>
>
>
> >> No, actually it isn't. It may appear that way to the short sighted,
> >> however what it actually happening is it is drawing the marginal
> >> terrorists and terrorist supporters out of the woodwork so they can
> >> be dealt with.
>
> > Does Dien Bien Phu ring a bell?
>
> Only in your stunted little mind.
>
> this is *2007* John Kane......... not ****ing 1954.

Ah, I see it did.


>
>
>
> > John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
>
> Can you guy *please* become a Republic?? You're an embarassment to the
> rest of the Commonwealth.
>
> Or maybe, it's just you?
>
> --
> Peter Lucas
> Brisbane
> Australia
>
> "People sleep safely in their beds because rough men stand ready in
> the night to do violence to those who would do them harm"
> -- George Orwell

blake murphy > wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 10:58:55 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:
>>Perhaps too bright to enrol in the service of a county where he would be
>>expected to blindly obey the orders of liars and incompetents.
>
>there is that. i'll guess i'll laugh out of the other side of my
>mouth when the dreaded brown islamofascists come over here and slit my
>throat.

If we'd attacked them instead of attacking Iraq, there'd
be fewer of them now, not more.

But that's not how Bush thinks (you know, admitting the
truth, and stuff).

--Blair

On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:07:33 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\" Lonergan"
> wrote:

>Blair P. Houghton > dropped this turd news:g29ti.59553$ss3.15869
: in rec.food.cooking
>
>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>>On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 10:58:55 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:
>>>>Perhaps too bright to enrol in the service of a county where he would be
>>>>expected to blindly obey the orders of liars and incompetents.
>>>
>>>there is that. i'll guess i'll laugh out of the other side of my
>>>mouth when the dreaded brown islamofascists come over here and slit my
>>>throat.
>>
>> If we'd attacked them instead of attacking Iraq, there'd
>> be fewer of them now, not more.
>>
>> But that's not how Bush thinks (you know, admitting the
>> truth, and stuff).
>>
>> --Blair
>>
>
>Bush thinks? That's a new one.
>
>Michael

he feels in his gut that he thinks.

your pal,
karl

Michael \"Dog3\" Lonergan > wrote:
>Blair P. Houghton > dropped this turd news:g29ti.59553$ss3.15869
>> But that's not how Bush thinks (you know, admitting the
>> truth, and stuff).
>
>Bush thinks? That's a new one.

After a fashion. I imagine his brainworkings resemble
the top of a simmering pot of chili or oatmeal.

--Blair

blake murphy > wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:07:33 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\" Lonergan"
>>Bush thinks? That's a new one.
>
>he feels in his gut that he thinks.

Jesus told him that he feels in his gut that he thinks.

--Blair
"Oh shit. We elected Homer Simpson."

In article >, says...
> Michael \"Dog3\" Lonergan > wrote:
> >Blair P. Houghton > dropped this turd news:g29ti.59553$ss3.15869
> >> But that's not how Bush thinks (you know, admitting the
> >> truth, and stuff).
> >
> >Bush thinks? That's a new one.
>
> After a fashion. I imagine his brainworkings resemble
> the top of a simmering pot of chili or oatmeal.
>
> --Blair
>

After it's been left out for a week.

--
Peter Aitken

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 00:22:38 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > wrote:

>blake murphy > wrote:
>>On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:07:33 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\" Lonergan"
>>>Bush thinks? That's a new one.
>>
>>he feels in his gut that he thinks.
>
>Jesus told him that he feels in his gut that he thinks.
>
> --Blair
> "Oh shit. We elected Homer Simpson."

homer at least wouldn't be caught dead drinking o'douls.

your pal,
moe

blake murphy wrote:

> every patriot should swallow

Why just only patriots?
--
Vilco
Think pink, drink rose'