Kathleen wrote:

> ™¥ Horry ™¥ wrote:

> > Is it true that Americans call bumble bees "humble bees"?
>
> Not that I've ever heard.
>
> I've heard them called "Ow, ow, ow, goddamn it, shit, NO don't come
> back here there's a goddamn nest call the dogs in oh crap there's one
> stuck in my HAIR getitout getitout GETITOUT!"
>
> I really hate bumble bees.

Are you sure you're talking about bumble bees? While somewhat
ferocious-looking, they aren't very aggressive, less so than even
European honeybees. You pretty much have to step in the nest to get
workers to respond at all. The drones will fly at you, but they can't
sting.



Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:26:22 -0600, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:37:42 -0600, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>> > Felice wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So what are those of us who are celebrating going to have for lunch on
>> >> Tuesday? The best I can come up with is Chicago deep-dish pizza from Uno via
>> >> Dining In. Someone has to have a better idea.
>> >>
>> >> Felice
>> >> .
>> >
>> > Very close to half the population of the US will not be celebrating. I
>> > expect close to 100% are hoping for the best however.
>> >
>> > It's pretty sad how the perception of the election is drastically
>> > different when the reality is that it was only a few percent further
>> > apart than the election folks still haven't stopped bitching about.
>> > Those few percent can largely be attributed to those voting based on the
>> > novelty factor of making a historic election, and not on political
>> > positions.
>> >
I didn't reply to this when I first read it, but this afternoon I want
to caution against this sort of analysis to the extent that it is
based on a conception of voters' motives. George Will said something
about voters' motives back in October after Colin Powell's endorsement
of Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl_ivLT-Zm0&eurl

And it's just downright odd. Millions of Americans, including Powell,
weighed statements of policy and estimations of character, evaluated
the candidates' evident grasp of ideas and issues to make their
decisions, and along comes a commentator who alleges that if he had
the right tools, he could measure their motives -- motives which he
suspects he already knows according to his special ability to divine
what they're really thinking.

Geoge Will does not know what I think. He does not have that sort of
psychometric tool. Asserting my motives is my job, not anyone else's.
And that goes for all of us, regardless of our politics.

The net effect of such assessment is to subvert the concept of
reasonable choice.

Similarly, to assert that voters, whom you do not know, were motivated
by a "novelty factor" is to claim a special knowledge of their
psyches.
--
modom

ambitious when it comes to fiddling with meat

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 13:07:45 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote:
>
>The menu on one site name it Sour Cherry Chutney; the recipe on the link
>I posted just calls it Cherry Chutney. I wrote to Senator Feinstein to
>request the chef be flogged. I got a canned reply.

Canned like the cherries. In defense of the floggable chef, it's
January and fresh cherries, sour or otherwise, are scarce. But your
point is well taken -- if a bit BARBaric from the chef's point of
view.
--
modom

ambitious when it comes to fiddling with meat

Michael "Dog3" wrote:

> I wonder what the Bush supporters did for his inaugurations? Kick back on
> the sofa and popped open a can of beer?

BUSCH Beer! ;-)

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.

--Lin

sf wrote:

>
> He's the only president (except Regan, who dyed his hair) I remember
> who didn't visibly age in office. He certainly got a lot of rest....
> off to bed at 9PM every night and to Camp David as much as possible.
> Well, lots of rest and Cheney making decisions for him. It was a no
> brainer presidency.
>
>

....and he fit the description perfectly.

gloria p

"modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:26:22 -0600, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >blake murphy wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:37:42 -0600, Pete C. wrote:
> >>
> >> > Felice wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> So what are those of us who are celebrating going to have for lunch on
> >> >> Tuesday? The best I can come up with is Chicago deep-dish pizza from Uno via
> >> >> Dining In. Someone has to have a better idea.
> >> >>
> >> >> Felice
> >> >> .
> >> >
> >> > Very close to half the population of the US will not be celebrating. I
> >> > expect close to 100% are hoping for the best however.
> >> >
> >> > It's pretty sad how the perception of the election is drastically
> >> > different when the reality is that it was only a few percent further
> >> > apart than the election folks still haven't stopped bitching about.
> >> > Those few percent can largely be attributed to those voting based on the
> >> > novelty factor of making a historic election, and not on political
> >> > positions.
> >> >
> I didn't reply to this when I first read it, but this afternoon I want
> to caution against this sort of analysis to the extent that it is
> based on a conception of voters' motives. George Will said something
> about voters' motives back in October after Colin Powell's endorsement
> of Obama:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl_ivLT-Zm0&eurl
>
> And it's just downright odd. Millions of Americans, including Powell,
> weighed statements of policy and estimations of character, evaluated
> the candidates' evident grasp of ideas and issues to make their
> decisions, and along comes a commentator who alleges that if he had
> the right tools, he could measure their motives -- motives which he
> suspects he already knows according to his special ability to divine
> what they're really thinking.
>
> Geoge Will does not know what I think. He does not have that sort of
> psychometric tool. Asserting my motives is my job, not anyone else's.
> And that goes for all of us, regardless of our politics.
>
> The net effect of such assessment is to subvert the concept of
> reasonable choice.
>
> Similarly, to assert that voters, whom you do not know, were motivated
> by a "novelty factor" is to claim a special knowledge of their
> psyches.

Do you find it unreasonable that a good portion of that 3% of the
electorate that swung us away from another tie did so for reasons other
than political positions? Certainly we saw plenty of folks admitting on
camera that their votes were based solely on non issue factors. Is it
unreasonable to think that those folks represent a couple percent of the
electorate?

Again, my main point is that this country is doomed unless we find a way
to pull the bulk of the population back to the center. Both main parties
have put their political ambitions ahead of the good of the country and
they are playing a dangerous tug of war to try to pull voters into their
wings. They are rejecting finding compromises and middle ground on
critical issues in the fear that it will somehow validate the
opposition.

We need to end the left wing, right wing nonsense and find that middle
ground if the country is to survive. There are too many critical issues
that have been ignored while the pointless winger battles have raged.

I wish Obama well, he has some very difficult issues to deal with, but
ultimately if he or someone else doesn't find a way to bring some unity
to this country, issues like the economy, health care, terrorism, etc.
don't matter.

modom (palindrome guy) wrote:

> Canned like the cherries. In defense of the floggable chef, it's
> January and fresh cherries, sour or otherwise, are scarce. But your
> point is well taken -- if a bit BARBaric from the chef's point of
> view.
> --
> modom


Fresh cherries are all over my stores now, although a tad pricey. I paid
something like $3.69/pound the other day for some.

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 09:30:03 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > "jmcquown" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Frankly, no. Who gives a rats ass what we eat for lunch that day?! It's
> >> a
> >> Tuesday. Same as any other day. I'll probably make chicken noodle soup,
> >> curl up on the couch and read a book. It's only an "event" at the White
> >> House.
> >
> >That's simply not true. I forget the numbers, but a significant
> >percentage of the entire US population will be physically present. A
> >lot of others will be watching and listening. I'm not interested at
> >all, but I can still recognize that others are.
>
> There's a reason why presidential inaugurations are on every channel.

EVERY CHANNEL???

I guess I better go and rent some movies!

(just kidding, I suspect my wife will have the tv in use watching the
damn thing)

:-)

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 13:59:52 -0600, "modom (palindrome guy)"
> wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 13:07:45 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote:
>>
>>The menu on one site name it Sour Cherry Chutney; the recipe on the link
>>I posted just calls it Cherry Chutney. I wrote to Senator Feinstein to
>>request the chef be flogged. I got a canned reply.
>
>Canned like the cherries. In defense of the floggable chef, it's
>January and fresh cherries, sour or otherwise, are scarce. But your
>point is well taken -- if a bit BARBaric from the chef's point of
>view.

Yeah, but they are AMERICAN cherries instead of a cheap import.



--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:18:06 -0500, Goomba >
wrote:

>modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>
>> Canned like the cherries. In defense of the floggable chef, it's
>> January and fresh cherries, sour or otherwise, are scarce. But your
>> point is well taken -- if a bit BARBaric from the chef's point of
>> view.
>
>Fresh cherries are all over my stores now, although a tad pricey. I paid
>something like $3.69/pound the other day for some.

It was my impression -- possibly wrong -- that the food was to be
locally sourced as far as possible. Now whare did I come up with that
idea?
--
modom

ambitious when it comes to fiddling with meat

modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 13:07:45 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> > wrote:
>> The menu on one site name it Sour Cherry Chutney; the recipe on the link
>> I posted just calls it Cherry Chutney. I wrote to Senator Feinstein to
>> request the chef be flogged. I got a canned reply.
>
> Canned like the cherries. In defense of the floggable chef, it's
> January and fresh cherries, sour or otherwise, are scarce. But your
> point is well taken -- if a bit BARBaric from the chef's point of
> view.
> --


BA Farrell >
Many of our local markets currently have sweet cherries from Chile,
ranging from $1.99-5.99/lb. I was amazed to see these in January,
and they are delicious.

gloria p

In article >,
"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:

> Dan wrote:
>
> > I forget the numbers, but a significant percentage of the entire US
> > population will be physically present.
>
> Given that the population of the USA is about three hundred million, I very
> strongly doubt that even one percent of the population will be physically
> present.
>
> What percentage do you consider "significant"?

For "physically present", and the entire population of the US, I think
1% is really high. Since I wrote the above, I have read in many places
that it is estimated that 2 million people will be there. I have seen
no numbers for how many people will watch it live on tv or whatever, but
I would assume that would be much higher. And then there's the people
who will watch recorded clips.

I'm trying to get my head around this. That means that if somebody
knows 300 people at their work, statistics say that two of them are
traveling to Washington DC to see this thing. That just staggers me. I
was reading in the local paper that a bunch of people are going there
from Petaluma.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 07:08:49 -0500, jmcquown wrote:
>
>> "peninsula" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Felice" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> So what are those of us who are celebrating going to have for lunch on
>>>>> Tuesday? The best I can come up with is Chicago deep-dish pizza from
>>>>> Uno
>>>>> via Dining In. Someone has to have a better idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> Felice
>>>>> .
>>>> I really have to wonder why the inuaguration of a U.S. President
>>>> influences your choices for lunch on that day. Did you have something
>>>> special for lunch the day Jimmy Carter was sworn in? How silly.
>>>>
>>
>>> Don't you wish you could just inhale the same air as Obama does?
>>>
>>
>> Frankly, no. Who gives a rats ass what we eat for lunch that day?! It's
>> a
>> Tuesday. Same as any other day. I'll probably make chicken noodle soup,
>> curl up on the couch and read a book. It's only an "event" at the White
>> House.
>>
>> Jill
>
> nope. many people (quite reasonably, i think) are very happy to see
> george
> bush's back as he returns to texas.
>

Uh, you're talking to Jill. You know this bitch voted George in both times
and voted for McCain this time. We're having filet mignon, lobster tails
broiled in butter, asparagus and home made rolls made in my bread machine.
Strawberries and champagne for dessert.

"Gregory Morrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> "jmcquown" > wrote:
>>
>> > "Felice" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > So what are those of us who are celebrating going to have for lunch
>> > > on
>> > > Tuesday? The best I can come up with is Chicago deep-dish pizza from
> Uno
>> > > via Dining In. Someone has to have a better idea.
>> > >
>> > > Felice
>> > > .
>> > I really have to wonder why the inuaguration of a U.S. President
> influences
>> > your choices for lunch on that day. Did you have something special for
>> > lunch the day Jimmy Carter was sworn in? How silly.
>> >
>> > Jill
>>
>>
>> Is that really Jill McQuown's post or a forger?
>
>
> Even the most skillful of forgers could not stoop to such pettiness as
> Jill
> did above...
>
> [Yeah, it's Jill...]
>

The best thing Jill has ever done in her life is choose her daddy. No, wait
...

"Michael "Dog3"" > wrote in message
...
> "jmcquown" >
> : in rec.food.cooking
>
>> "Felice" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> So what are those of us who are celebrating going to have for lunch
>>> on Tuesday? The best I can come up with is Chicago deep-dish pizza
>>> from Uno via Dining In. Someone has to have a better idea.
>>>
>>> Felice
>>> .
>> I really have to wonder why the inuaguration of a U.S. President
>> influences your choices for lunch on that day. Did you have something
>> special for lunch the day Jimmy Carter was sworn in? How silly.
>
> Ordinarily I don't but several of my friends and neighbors worked hard on
> the Obama campaign and we're going to celebrate this one. We deserve it.
> Besides, it *is* an historical moment in US history.
>
> I wonder what the Bush supporters did for his inaugurations? Kick back on
> the sofa and popped open a can of beer?
>

They watched the ball game instead.

Dan Abel wrote:


>
> I don't have a problem with bees. My father used to keep them in the
> back yard. He always told us that if we don't bother the nest, and
> watch where we put our body parts, we won't have a problem. Wasps and
> hornets are different. We've had a couple of problems at church camp.
> I suspect, though, that kids found those paper nests irresistible, and
> threw rocks or poked them with sticks. Some kids got stung multiple
> times. The staff at the camp would kill any nest that we reported, if
> it was close to camp or a trail.

Lee Valley sells phony wasp nests. It seems that they are territorial
and won't built nests if they think there is another one nearby. Who
knows. I bought their fruit fly trap two years ago and noticed no
reduction in the number of fruit flies.

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
> For "physically present", and the entire population of the US, I think
> 1% is really high. Since I wrote the above, I have read in many places
> that it is estimated that 2 million people will be there.

Where will they all pee? I cannot imagine being in a crowd like that, or
Times Square on NY eve.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:21:37 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>
>"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
>> For "physically present", and the entire population of the US, I think
>> 1% is really high. Since I wrote the above, I have read in many places
>> that it is estimated that 2 million people will be there.
>
>Where will they all pee? I cannot imagine being in a crowd like that, or
>Times Square on NY eve.
>
Will no one think of the pee?

I've read that there has been no little debate about this in DC. The
5,000 port-a-potties that have been dispersed strategically (one
hopes) are certain to be woefully inadequate to meet the demand.

One source suggested people bring their own:
http://traveljohn.com/1-1-1.php

This could partially answer the need, but modesty would remain n
issue.
--
modom

ambitious when it comes to fiddling with meat

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "Dan Abel" > wrote in message
>> For "physically present", and the entire population of the US, I
>> think 1% is really high. Since I wrote the above, I have read in
>> many places that it is estimated that 2 million people will be there.
>
> Where will they all pee? I cannot imagine being in a crowd like
> that, or Times Square on NY eve.

FWIW I saw on Leno that there will be 1 portapotty for every
6000 people. Should be interesting. Perhaps they've added
more.

nancy

In article >,
Gloria P > wrote:

> The Marines are there for pomp and circumstance,nothing more.
>
> gloria p

My nephew was part of President Carter's honor guard and tells of
playing softball games against the press corps at Camp David. When he
got the assignment, the first thing he was told was to not EVER
discharge his firearm. LOL! (And boy did he have some not nice words
about the Vice President, our own Fritz Mondale. Apparently more than a
little bit of a pompous jerk.)

--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller
http://gallery.me.com/barbschaller/100041
-- a woman my age shouldn't
have this much fun!

In article >,
"modom (palindrome guy)" > wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 13:07:45 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> > wrote:
> >
> >The menu on one site name it Sour Cherry Chutney; the recipe on the link
> >I posted just calls it Cherry Chutney. I wrote to Senator Feinstein to
> >request the chef be flogged. I got a canned reply.
>
> Canned like the cherries. In defense of the floggable chef, it's
> January and fresh cherries, sour or otherwise, are scarce. But your
> point is well taken -- if a bit BARBaric from the chef's point of
> view.
> --
> modom

No, nein, nyet, ixnay! It's not about fresh cherries vs. canned,
Mikhail. It's about a recipe on the menu that's called Sour Cherry
Chutney and the recipe calls for bing (sweet) cherries. Oregon brand
cans a sour cherry, too.

--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller
http://gallery.me.com/barbschaller/100041
-- a woman my age shouldn't
have this much fun!

In article >,
Goomba > wrote:

> Fresh cherries are all over my stores now, although a tad pricey. I paid
> something like $3.69/pound the other day for some.

Here, too. I think the ticket was $2.99/lb for bings -- probably from
Chile.


--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller
http://gallery.me.com/barbschaller/100041
-- a woman my age shouldn't
have this much fun!

In article >,
"modom (palindrome guy)" > wrote:

> It was my impression -- possibly wrong -- that the food was to be
> locally sourced as far as possible. Now whare did I come up with that
> idea?
> --
> modom



Well, canned cherries from Oregon are more local than fresh ones from
Chile, I suppose. :-)
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller
http://gallery.me.com/barbschaller/100041
-- a woman my age shouldn't
have this much fun!

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 09:30:03 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> "jmcquown" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Frankly, no. Who gives a rats ass what we eat for lunch that day?!
>>> It's a
>>> Tuesday. Same as any other day. I'll probably make chicken noodle
>>> soup,
>>> curl up on the couch and read a book. It's only an "event" at the White
>>> House.
>>
>>That's simply not true. I forget the numbers, but a significant
>>percentage of the entire US population will be physically present. A
>>lot of others will be watching and listening. I'm not interested at
>>all, but I can still recognize that others are.
>
> There's a reason why presidential inaugurations are on every channel.


OMG what is going to happen to Hardball & Countdown

Dimitri

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:21:37 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>
>"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
>> For "physically present", and the entire population of the US, I think
>> 1% is really high. Since I wrote the above, I have read in many places
>> that it is estimated that 2 million people will be there.
>
>Where will they all pee?
>
The porta potties are up, but not enough for 2 million people. I
thought they quoted 10,000 porta potties on news tv, but the article I
just read on the internet says only 5,000.

>I cannot imagine being in a crowd like that, or Times Square on NY eve.

Me either.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

Default User wrote:

> Kathleen wrote:
>
>
>>™¥ Horry ™¥ wrote:
>
>
>>>Is it true that Americans call bumble bees "humble bees"?
>>
>>Not that I've ever heard.
>>
>>I've heard them called "Ow, ow, ow, goddamn it, shit, NO don't come
>>back here there's a goddamn nest call the dogs in oh crap there's one
>>stuck in my HAIR getitout getitout GETITOUT!"
>>
>>I really hate bumble bees.
>
>
> Are you sure you're talking about bumble bees?

Yes. I'm absolutely sure. They're the great big furry ones.


While somewhat
> ferocious-looking, they aren't very aggressive, less so than even
> European honeybees. You pretty much have to step in the nest to get
> workers to respond at all.

Or run a lawn mower over or near their camp.

The drones will fly at you, but they can't
> sting.

I don't know which ones can sting and which ones can't. I didn't stop
to check IDs. Nor did I sent them an eviction notice before nuking
their nest with insecticide dispensed from a pressure sprayer from
several feet away. Nothing that cranky and capable of inflicting that
sort of injury could be allowed to establish a colony in a yard
frequented by dogs and small children.

"EAT MOLTEN CHEMICAL DEATH, YOU *******S!!!"

In article > ,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I don't have a problem with bees. My father used to keep them in the
> > back yard. He always told us that if we don't bother the nest, and
> > watch where we put our body parts, we won't have a problem. Wasps and
> > hornets are different. We've had a couple of problems at church camp.
> > I suspect, though, that kids found those paper nests irresistible, and
> > threw rocks or poked them with sticks. Some kids got stung multiple
> > times. The staff at the camp would kill any nest that we reported, if
> > it was close to camp or a trail.
>
> Lee Valley sells phony wasp nests. It seems that they are territorial
> and won't built nests if they think there is another one nearby. Who
> knows. I bought their fruit fly trap two years ago and noticed no
> reduction in the number of fruit flies.

For fruit fly traps, I take a glass wine bottle and put a little grape
or apple juice in the bottom of it. About 1" to 2" deep.

Drowns them and reduces their numbers.

If you have them in the house, place the traps in a couple of corners of
the kitchen, AND routinely wash any fruit you bring into the house
immediately on getting it home! Especially bananas.

We used to constantly have fruit flies until dad started soaking the
bananas in hot soapy water as soon as they came in.

The eggs are often on the surfaces of store bought fruit.

We have very few now. :-)
--
Peace! Om

"Any ship can be a minesweeper. Once." -- Anonymous

Dan Abel wrote:
>
> I don't have a problem with bees. My father used to keep them in the
> back yard. He always told us that if we don't bother the nest, and
> watch where we put our body parts, we won't have a problem. Wasps and
> hornets are different. We've had a couple of problems at church camp.
> I suspect, though, that kids found those paper nests irresistible, and
> threw rocks or poked them with sticks. Some kids got stung multiple
> times. The staff at the camp would kill any nest that we reported, if
> it was close to camp or a trail.

I used to raise bees. Non-Africanized bees aren't
very aggressive. Hornets are very aggressive, but
their stings aren't nearly as bad as bees.

I've heard that certain perfumes attract bee attacks
because they contain the bee alarm pheromone, isoamyl
acetate. I've only encountered that chemical once,
where I worked several years ago. The electron microscope
lab used some chemical for mounting specimens, and the
head of the lab remarked that it smelled like bananas.
I checked the bottle, and sure enough it used isoamyl
acetate (a.k.a. "banana oil") as a solvent. I warned him
about the risk involving bees.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:32:09 -0800, "Dimitri" >
wrote:

>OMG what is going to happen to Hardball & Countdown

I don't know. They'll probably all take turns hosting that part of
the inauguration and be glad they aren't out in the cold interviewing
the crowds.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> In article >,
> Goomba > wrote:
>
>> Fresh cherries are all over my stores now, although a tad pricey. I paid
>> something like $3.69/pound the other day for some.
>
> Here, too. I think the ticket was $2.99/lb for bings -- probably from
> Chile.
>
>


Here they are $1.99-5.99/lb from Chile. A few weeks ago my daughter
found them for $.99, a loss-leader at a new market called "Sprouts",
an offshoot of the CA Henry's/Boney's stores. Always great produce.

gloria p

Gloria P > wrote in
:

> PeterLucas wrote:
>> sf > wrote in news:fv14n4p9a01s918mfnmidrthubqbk5ql5t@
>> 4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 08:04:17 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
>>> > wrote:
>>>> I wonder if anyone ever gets tiddly and/or unruly and has to be
>>>> removed
>>> >from the dining room after all that wine.
>>>
>>> Maybe that's the real reason the Marines are there.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So you equate the reasons for the Marines being there to being
>> 'bouncers' for your drunk and unruly politicions and their wives.....
>> right???
>>
>
>
>
> Peter, you recognize that this thread has morphed into humor and
> quasi-humor a long time ago, right?



I didn't see any smileys.



--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia


"And where is the Prince who can afford to so cover his country with
troops for its defense, as that ten thousand men descending from the
clouds, might not in many places do an infinite deal of mischief, before
a force could be brought together to repel them?"

Benjamin Franklin 1748

sf > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:42:43 +0000 (UTC), PeterLucas
> > wrote:
>>
>>So you equate the reasons for the Marines being there to being
>>'bouncers' for your drunk and unruly politicions and their wives.....
>>right???
>
> A. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.


I don't live in a glass house.

We don't have Australian Special Forces present at dinner parties for
politicians.


> B. Educate yourself
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Band


It's an Army band. Big deal!!


> C. Get into your feeble brain that "Send in the Marines" is a joke


Try using a smiley next time, if it ever enters your tiny little brain.



--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia


"And where is the Prince who can afford to so cover his country with
troops for its defense, as that ten thousand men descending from the
clouds, might not in many places do an infinite deal of mischief, before
a force could be brought together to repel them?"

Benjamin Franklin 1748

On 18 Jan 2009 05:29:43 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\""
> wrote:

>Melba's Jammin' >
: in
>rec.food.cooking
>
>> Bean Soup -- in hope that it'll help get me another senator in the
>> legislature?
>
>Oh dear Gawd. We need a Rod Blagojevich soup. We'll have to find a recipe
>out there for soup that has an ingredient list calling for rotten apples
>;-)

Barb lives in Minne-haha-soter where the contested, contested, and
contested recount has taken thousands of years to complete this cycle
and there ain't a Blago in sight.
--
modom

ambitious when it comes to fiddling with meat

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 03:32:29 +0000 (UTC), PeterLucas
> wrote:

>> B. Educate yourself
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Band
>
>
>It's an Army band. Big deal!!

It's the Marine Band, which is why you still can't "get it".


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On 18 Jan 2009 05:29:43 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\""
> wrote:

>Oh dear Gawd. We need a Rod Blagojevich soup. We'll have to find a recipe
>out there for soup that has an ingredient list calling for rotten apples

Rotten apples.... oh, you mean CIDER! I can go for that. Oh, yeah!


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 23:54:02 -0600, "modom (palindrome guy)"
> wrote:

>Barb lives in Minne-haha-soter where the contested, contested, and
>contested recount has taken thousands of years to complete this cycle
>and there ain't a Blago in sight.

Now waitaminute... I thought one beat the other by 250-500 votes (who
said one vote doesn't matter?). It's up to the courts now because the
loser is crying foul.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_155367.html


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:42:49 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:57:30 -0600, modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:39:52 -0500, "Felice" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>So what are those of us who are celebrating going to have for lunch on
>>>Tuesday? The best I can come up with is Chicago deep-dish pizza from Uno via
>>>Dining In. Someone has to have a better idea.
>>>
>>>Felice
>>>.
>> Second reply. Here's the menu for the official Senate luncheon the
>> day of the inauguration:
>>
>> The Appetizer: Seafood Stew accompanied by Duckhorn Vineyards, 2007
>> Sauvignon Blanc, Napa Valley.
>>
>> The Entree: Brace of American birds (pheasant and duck), served with
>> Sour Cherry Chutney and Molasses Sweet Potatoes and accompanied by
>> Goldeneye, 2005 Pinot Noir, Anderson Valley.
>>
>> Dessert: Apple Cinnamon Sponge Cake and Sweet Cream Glacé , with
>> Korbel Natural “Special Inaugural Cuvée,” California Champagne.
>>
>> Pix of the plates and other stuff he
>> http://inaugural.senate.gov/luncheon/
>
>senators get to drink at lunch time? that explains a lot.

If I had to listen to that crap all day long my water glass would be
filled with gin starting in the morning.

Lou Kennedy

sf wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:51:08 -0800 (PST), Lynn from Fargo
> > wrote:
>
>> Funny, you don't sound Centrist to me. You sound slightly right of
>> Gengis Khan.
>
> Obama's team kicked ass and everyone knows it except diehard right
> wingers and the perpetually disgruntled.
>
>

47% of those who voted didn't vote for Obama. Clearly you expressed
something completely different. I think the intense polarization that
drives this is driven by the fat cats who own the politicians playing
with us.

A good current example is we are told it is a good thing that the "blue
team" controls Congress because they are very smart and work for the
"common man". Yet they voted to pull currently around a trillion dollars
out of our pockets to throw it on the front steps of the useless
financial industry which are nothing but a bunch of greedy parasitical
thieves who have inserted themselves into every aspect of life.

"George" ha scritto nel messaggio

they voted to pull currently around a trillion dollars > out of our pockets
to throw it on the front steps of the useless > financial industry which are
nothing but a bunch of greedy parasitical
> thieves who have inserted >themselves into every aspect of life.

Could you allow that they are trying to rescue it because if it goes the
retirement savings of million will go with it? Thay aren't trying to rescue
Maddon, you know.

That financial system is run by our brothers, aunts and children. These are
not aliens or terrorists sent to break us. The greed, bad judgment and lack
of responsibility displayed is how our society reared them. Those that
weren't already like that quickly figured it out.

You can rant and rave about them, but THEY ARE US. The now impotent
oversight departments SEC, et al, were set up to save us from another 1929,
but we laugh at the Depression mentality of our parents and grandparents and
we didn't pay attention to the fact that this has always been us and nothing
has changed. The dog that bites needs muzzling.

Giusi wrote:
> "George" ha scritto nel messaggio
>
> they voted to pull currently around a trillion dollars > out of our pockets
> to throw it on the front steps of the useless > financial industry which are
> nothing but a bunch of greedy parasitical
>> thieves who have inserted >themselves into every aspect of life.
>
> Could you allow that they are trying to rescue it because if it goes the
> retirement savings of million will go with it? Thay aren't trying to rescue
> Maddon, you know.

If the institutions disappeared whatever was left of the retirement
savings of millions would still be left. The government should have
simply let the crooked and greedy institutions fail and transfer the
remains to sound institutions just like they have done with failed banks
in the past. There was absolutely no need to bail these crooks out
except to transfer more wealth to them. The government created lots of
FUD and it worked.

Bailing them out sent a message of continue as usual and you will get
your bonuses for a job well done and thats exactly what happened.

>
> That financial system is run by our brothers, aunts and children. These are
> not aliens or terrorists sent to break us. The greed, bad judgment and lack
> of responsibility displayed is how our society reared them. Those that
> weren't already like that quickly figured it out.

Sure, and when the crooked and greedy ones were left to fail the other
ones would continue and have a serious fear they would also fail and
that they really needed to continue to realize it isn't there money.
They simply have a job because of the wealth of others and they are
there simply to provide a service and not continue to devise ways to
move massive wealth to themselves.

If your brother, aunt or child committed a criminal act for whatever
motivation would you say "thats OK you know how it is" or "they should
be prosecuted/punished according to standards"?

>
> You can rant and rave about them, but THEY ARE US. The now impotent
> oversight departments SEC, et al, were set up to save us from another 1929,
> but we laugh at the Depression mentality of our parents and grandparents and
> we didn't pay attention to the fact that this has always been us and nothing
> has changed. The dog that bites needs muzzling.
>
>
>
Sure heroes and criminals and everyone else are us too. The last of the
protections devised to prevent another 1929 were removed by the joint
work of the red and blue teams when Clinton signed the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act into law enabling all of their financial friends
to pretty much do whatever they wanted.