In article >,
Strabo > wrote:


> >>> Crystal Palace (medcinal purposes of course)

> >> Crystal Palace??
> >
> > Vodka.
> >
> > Personally, if I were going to stock alcohol, I'd stock in Crystal
> > Springs. That's grain alcohol so would go a bit further.
> > Needs serious diluting before drinking. <g>
> >
>
> Grain alcohol is expensive and hard to get in some places.
>
> Vodka is a good choice as it can be used to prepare plant medications
> as well as a general solvent and intoxicant.

Crystal Springs is a brand of cheap vodka sold in the US. Some people
use "grain alcohol" and "vodka" interchangeably. In the US, vodka is
simply diluted grain alcohol. Grain alcohol comes out of the still at
190 proof. Most vodka in the US is 80 proof, although other strengths
are rarely sold.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel > wrote:

> Grain alcohol comes out of the still at 190 proof.

Is calculating a percentage beyond the capabilities of cross-pondians?

It's as amusing as that hanging onto Imperial weights and measures
rubbish.

In article
>,
Dan Abel > wrote:

> In article >,
> Strabo > wrote:
>
>
> > >>> Crystal Palace (medcinal purposes of course)
>
> > >> Crystal Palace??
> > >
> > > Vodka.
> > >
> > > Personally, if I were going to stock alcohol, I'd stock in Crystal
> > > Springs. That's grain alcohol so would go a bit further.
> > > Needs serious diluting before drinking. <g>
> > >
> >
> > Grain alcohol is expensive and hard to get in some places.
> >
> > Vodka is a good choice as it can be used to prepare plant medications
> > as well as a general solvent and intoxicant.
>
> Crystal Springs is a brand of cheap vodka sold in the US. Some people
> use "grain alcohol" and "vodka" interchangeably. In the US, vodka is
> simply diluted grain alcohol. Grain alcohol comes out of the still at
> 190 proof. Most vodka in the US is 80 proof, although other strengths
> are rarely sold.

I think you are thinking of Crystal Palace babe. Crystal Springs is 190
proof grain alcohol. The "generic" of Everclear and runs around $15.00
per bottle:

http://i44.tinypic.com/55kw9f.jpg

It ain't Vodka, trust me. <g>
I DO know the difference.
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

In article >,
Omelet > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> Dan Abel > wrote:

> > Crystal Springs is a brand of cheap vodka sold in the US. Some people
> > use "grain alcohol" and "vodka" interchangeably. In the US, vodka is
> > simply diluted grain alcohol. Grain alcohol comes out of the still at
> > 190 proof. Most vodka in the US is 80 proof, although other strengths
> > are rarely sold.
>
> I think you are thinking of Crystal Palace babe. Crystal Springs is 190
> proof grain alcohol. The "generic" of Everclear and runs around $15.00
> per bottle:
>
> http://i44.tinypic.com/55kw9f.jpg
>
> It ain't Vodka, trust me. <g>
> I DO know the difference.

Yup. Crystal Palace. I had actually never heard of Crystal Springs, my
fingers just made that up!

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article
>,
Dan Abel > wrote:

> In article >,
> Omelet > wrote:
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > > Crystal Springs is a brand of cheap vodka sold in the US. Some people
> > > use "grain alcohol" and "vodka" interchangeably. In the US, vodka is
> > > simply diluted grain alcohol. Grain alcohol comes out of the still at
> > > 190 proof. Most vodka in the US is 80 proof, although other strengths
> > > are rarely sold.
> >
> > I think you are thinking of Crystal Palace babe. Crystal Springs is 190
> > proof grain alcohol. The "generic" of Everclear and runs around $15.00
> > per bottle:
> >
> > http://i44.tinypic.com/55kw9f.jpg
> >
> > It ain't Vodka, trust me. <g>
> > I DO know the difference.
>
> Yup. Crystal Palace. I had actually never heard of Crystal Springs, my
> fingers just made that up!

It's all good. :-) I make the same kind of error sometimes!
This stuff will do bad things to your mouth and throat if you try
drinking it straight. <g>
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

pyotr filipivich wrote:
> I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Ginny
> > reported Elvis on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:48:07
> +0900 in misc.survivalism:
>> Gunner Asch wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 15:16:57 -0700, pyotr filipivich
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Gunner Asch
>>>> > reported Elvis on Sat, 21 Mar 2009
>>>> 19:09:27 -0700 in misc.survivalism:
>>>>> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:42:57 -0700, pyotr filipivich
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> unthawed w/o damage.]
>>>>>> And figure on getting more than you think you will need. One
>>>>>> method is to take the Official Government Estimate, double it, and
>>>>>> move to the next unit of time. Umm, but be reasonable. I mean, if the
>>>>>> Gov says "plan for a year", laying in supplies for two decades might
>>>>>> be a bit much. Might.
>>>>> Or might not be enough.
>>>> Have you considered where you would store a 20 year supply of
>>>> toilet paper?
>>> Sure. Id not buy 20 yrs worth of butt wipe. Id buy 5 yrs.
>>> And trading stock that I can use to buy butt wipe in 5. oo1 yrs
>> Actually better to trade over to a toilet wash cloth and more
>> environmentally friendly. The Romans used a sea sponge on a stick. Now
>> you can imagine where getting 'the rough end of the stick' originated
>> from. I gather it wasn't the end with the sponge )
>
> "Rough as a cob" - from the use of corn cobs.
>
> And the thought of twenty years of TP for some reason always
> reminds me of the movie "Dark Star". One of John Carpenter's earliest
> projects.
>
>
> pyotr
> -
> pyotr filipivich.
> Just about the time you fnally see light at the end of the tunnel,
> you learn it's a Government Project building more tunnel.

20 yrs of TP is ALOT of storage. I'd have rats and mice in after the
first 6 months. Better to learn how to make paper or as you suggest,
find a local alternative. Rough may be better than nothing.

--
Ginny - In West Australia

In article >, (Steve Firth) wrote:
>Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>> Grain alcohol comes out of the still at 190 proof.
>
>Is calculating a percentage beyond the capabilities of cross-pondians?

Actually, it seems they have to be able to calculate the percentage of
EtOH so they can quote the "n proof" because the latter is defined by
the Yanks as twice the EtOH content by volume! [1]

>It's as amusing as that hanging onto Imperial weights and measures
>rubbish.

Your comment inspired me to look into this "proof" business a bit...
As a kid I couldn't understand how you could have >100 degrees proof
because I mistakenly assumed degrees proof ~ per cent. Later I learnt
how "degrees proof" came about. But it seems the concept as now
defined is no longer as simple as the traditional gunpowder test. :-)

[1] Quick Ref: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_proof>

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

Ginny wrote:
>
> 20 yrs of TP is ALOT of storage. I'd have rats and mice in after the
> first 6 months. Better to learn how to make paper or as you suggest,
> find a local alternative. Rough may be better than nothing.

Is "alot" a word in Australian English?
>
> --
> Ginny - In West Australia

--Bryan

In article
>,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bobo_Bonobo=AE?= > wrote:
>Ginny wrote:
>>
>> 20 yrs of TP is ALOT of storage. I'd have rats and mice in after the
>> first 6 months. Better to learn how to make paper or as you suggest,
>> find a local alternative. Rough may be better than nothing.
>
>Is "alot" a word in Australian English?

No, "alot" is a word in Internet speak. Google tells me there are
about 78 million occurrences of "alot" indexed on the web, and my
assumption is that most come from the good ole US of A. (Well, most
stuff on the Internet does -- though China is catching up fast! :-)

[For the record, the correct phrase, "a lot" is still used in about
535 million entries according to Google. And, to be scrupulously
fair, most of those probably emanate from the good ole US of A too.]


Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
>
> Ginny wrote:
>> 20 yrs of TP is ALOT of storage. I'd have rats and mice in after the
>> first 6 months. Better to learn how to make paper or as you suggest,
>> find a local alternative. Rough may be better than nothing.
>
> Is "alot" a word in Australian English?
>> --
>> Ginny - In West Australia
>
> --Bryan

Shouldn't type tired and without glasses.

'a LOT' is what I meant but the grammar in the sentence could be
better too. Where/how would one store 20yrs of TP? Even just for one
person much less a family of 4.

--
Ginny - In West Australia

Ginny wrote:

> 'a LOT' is what I meant but the grammar in the sentence could be
> better too. Where/how would one store 20yrs of TP? Even just for one
> person much less a family of 4.

I have that problem everytime I go to CostCo. I can buy 40 rolls almost as
cheaply as 4 at the supermarket but what the hell am I going to do with a
two or three year supply? I'm still working my way through a bundle of
paper towels that I couldn't afford not to buy. At least the two year
supply of bar soap is a little more compact.

I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Ginny
> reported Elvis on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:59:56
+0900 in misc.survivalism:
>Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
>>
>> Ginny wrote:
>>> 20 yrs of TP is ALOT of storage. I'd have rats and mice in after the
>>> first 6 months. Better to learn how to make paper or as you suggest,
>>> find a local alternative. Rough may be better than nothing.
>>
>> Is "alot" a word in Australian English?
>>> --
>>> Ginny - In West Australia
>>
>> --Bryan
>
>Shouldn't type tired and without glasses.
>
> 'a LOT' is what I meant but the grammar in the sentence could be
>better too. Where/how would one store 20yrs of TP? Even just for one
>person much less a family of 4.

Well, you'll be building this bunker ...

The rule of thumb for attenuating radiation is 110 pounds per
square foot (I don't have a metric equivalent) - so ...

pyotr

-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you fnally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you learn it's a Government Project building more tunnel.

On Mar 27, 2:35*am, pyotr filipivich > wrote:
> I *missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Ginny
> > *reported Elvis on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:59:56
> +0900 in misc.survivalism:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
>
> >> Ginny wrote:
> >>> 20 yrs of TP is ALOT of storage. I'd have rats and mice in after the
> >>> first 6 months. Better to learn how to make paper or as you suggest,
> >>> find a local alternative. Rough may be better than nothing.
>
> >> Is "alot" a word in Australian English?
> >>> --
> >>> Ginny - In West Australia
>
> >> --Bryan
>
> >Shouldn't type tired and without glasses.
>
> > *'a LOT' is what I meant but the grammar in the sentence could be
> >better too. Where/how would one store 20yrs of TP? Even just for one
> >person much less a family of 4.
>
> * * * * Well, you'll be building this bunker ...
>
> * * * * The rule of thumb for attenuating radiation is 110 pounds per
> square foot (I don't have a metric equivalent) - so ...
>
> pyotr
>
> -
> pyotr filipivich.
> Just about the time you fnally see light at the end of the tunnel,
> you learn it's a Government Project building more tunnel.-

Distance and shielding. The closer, the thicker.

I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Stan Horwitz
> reported Elvis on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 11:05:56 -0400
in misc.survivalism:
>In article >,
> Burt Morgan > wrote:
>
>> With Russia spending many -billions- on rearmament and new nuclear weapons, I
>> think it's time to clean out and make good the bomb shelter so that it's
>> ready
>> for the inevitable nuclear war. I'm now restocking it with new food.
>>
>> What would you guys suggest I stock my shelter with? Remember these goods
>> have
>> to have a real good shelf life and provide enough nutrition for a family of
>> four
>> for the duration.
>
>I suggest letting the bomb take your life, and mine. I honestly cannot
>imagine living out the rest of my life in a bomb shelter. No thanks. The
>alternative is much more appealing. At least this way, I might get to
>find out of my theory about heaven being fictional is right or wrong.

I'm amused by this desire to die rather than do anything which
might be considered live extending.

I mean, you can't "cannot imagine living out the rest of my life
in a bomb shelter" - does it follow that you do not fasten seatbelts?
I mean, can you imagine "living out the rest of my life" strapped into
a chair, no matter how comfy it might be.
Say, if there was a hurricane coming your way, would you evacuate,
or do think "I honestly cannot imagine living out the rest of my life
in a [storm] shelter"?

Cie l'vie. What you have demonstrated is that you seem to not
consider your way of life as worth transmitting to the next
generation, or advocating after a major disaster. I wish folks like
you would wear a "do not resituate" sign, to spare scarce resources
for those who aren't living useless lives.


toodles
pyotr
-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you fnally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you learn it's a Government Project building more tunnel.

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:26:41 -0700, pyotr filipivich
> wrote:


> Cie l'vie. What you have demonstrated is that you seem to not
>consider your way of life as worth transmitting to the next
>generation, or advocating after a major disaster. I wish folks like
>you would wear a "do not resituate" sign, to spare scarce resources
>for those who aren't living useless lives.

It's always fascinating to me when reading or hearing of stories of
people surviving under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. It
seems that some people have this enormous will to live to matter what,
and no matter how bad things get. And then some people simply give up
and lay down an die. It's always fascinated me that this dichotomy of
human behavior existed and why.

>
>
>toodles
>pyotr
>-
>pyotr filipivich.
>Just about the time you fnally see light at the end of the tunnel,
>you learn it's a Government Project building more tunnel.

In article >, hal wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:26:41 -0700, pyotr filipivich
> > wrote:
>
>
> > Cie l'vie. What you have demonstrated is that you seem to not
> >consider your way of life as worth transmitting to the next
> >generation, or advocating after a major disaster. I wish folks like
> >you would wear a "do not resituate" sign, to spare scarce resources
> >for those who aren't living useless lives.
>
> It's always fascinating to me when reading or hearing of stories of
> people surviving under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. It
> seems that some people have this enormous will to live to matter what,
> and no matter how bad things get. And then some people simply give up
> and lay down an die. It's always fascinated me that this dichotomy of
> human behavior existed and why.

It depends on the situation. In a post nuclear holocaust, I would not
want to live if I was near the blast because the cancer and other
effects of the radiation would take me down regardless of my will to
live.

A hurricane or other natural disaster is an entirely different matter.
With a hurricane, I can get out of the way and simply return home and
rebuild later if necessary. That's much the case with forest fires,
tornadoes, etc. but with a nuclear blast, I honestly don't think I would
want to live in the aftermath of one of those, considering that the
nuclear weapons we have today make the ones dropped on Japan look like
dime store firecrackers.

Stan Horwitz wrote:
> In article >, hal wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:26:41 -0700, pyotr filipivich
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Cie l'vie. What you have demonstrated is that you seem to not
>>> consider your way of life as worth transmitting to the next
>>> generation, or advocating after a major disaster. I wish folks like
>>> you would wear a "do not resituate" sign, to spare scarce resources
>>> for those who aren't living useless lives.
>> It's always fascinating to me when reading or hearing of stories of
>> people surviving under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. It
>> seems that some people have this enormous will to live to matter what,
>> and no matter how bad things get. And then some people simply give up
>> and lay down an die. It's always fascinated me that this dichotomy of
>> human behavior existed and why.
>
> It depends on the situation. In a post nuclear holocaust, I would not
> want to live if I was near the blast because the cancer and other
> effects of the radiation would take me down regardless of my will to
> live.
>
> A hurricane or other natural disaster is an entirely different matter.
> With a hurricane, I can get out of the way and simply return home and
> rebuild later if necessary. That's much the case with forest fires,
> tornadoes, etc. but with a nuclear blast, I honestly don't think I would
> want to live in the aftermath of one of those, considering that the
> nuclear weapons we have today make the ones dropped on Japan look like
> dime store firecrackers.

So the nuclear holocaust you're anticipating would be something like On
The Beach? I would have to concur then but if it was more like Jericho
then I think we would fight to live. It would depend on the degree of
total damage and area affected in relation to us.
--
Ginny - In West Australia

On Apr 12, 1:20*am, Ginny > wrote:
> Stan Horwitz wrote:
> > In article >, hal wrote:
>
> >> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:26:41 -0700, pyotr filipivich
> >> > wrote:
>
> >>> * *Cie l'vie. *What you have demonstrated is that you seem tonot
> >>> consider your way of life as worth transmitting to the next
> >>> generation, or advocating after a major disaster. *I wish folks like
> >>> you would wear a "donotresituate" sign, to spare scarce resources
> >>> for those who aren't living useless lives.
> >> It's always fascinating to me when reading or hearing of stories of
> >> people surviving under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. *It
> >> seems that some people have this enormous will to live to matter what,
> >> and no matter how bad things get. *And then some people simply give up
> >> and lay down an die. *It's always fascinated me that this dichotomy of
> >> human behavior existed and why.
>
> > It depends on the situation. In a post nuclear holocaust, I wouldnot
> > want to live if I was near the blast because the cancer and other
> > effects of the radiation would take me down regardless of my will to
> > live.
>
> > A hurricane or other natural disaster is an entirely different matter.
> > With a hurricane, I can get out of the way and simply return home and
> > rebuild later if necessary. That's much the case with forest fires,
> > tornadoes, etc. but with a nuclear blast, I honestly don't think I would
> > want to live in the aftermath of one of those, considering that the
> > nuclear weapons we have today make the ones dropped on Japan look like
> > dime store firecrackers.
>
> So the nuclear holocaust you're anticipating would be something like On
> The Beach? I would have to concur then but if it was more like Jericho
> then I think we would fight to live. It would depend on the degree of
> total damage and area affected in relation to us.
> --
> Ginny - In West Australia

The novel by Neville Shute was utterly unrealistic in its portrayal of
a cloud of radioactivity slowly spreading around the world.

The physics just doesn't work this way. First off, anything that is so
super-hot as to kill in a short time tends not to last very long
(decay rate is inversely proportional to lifetime, naturally). So the
cloud that drifted around the world in "On the Beach" would be quite
cool by the time it drifted around the world.

(In fact, it would be lower in activity than the clouds of radioactive
dust from large volcanic eruptions, such as Krakatoa, which ejected
thousands of cubic meters of uranium and thorium into the upper
atmosphere.....a dose in terms of megacuries which far exceeds the
total megacuries in all of the bombs in the world's arsenals. Do the
math on curies per person per year.)

Secondly, even given such a fictional fallout, there are many
solutions. Digging deep beneath the ground is one of the dumbest. Much
easier to just set up rain roofs which divert fallout into trenches
around buildings. Again, do the math.

A dozen other solutions to this fictional scenario are easy to
research.

--Tim May

wrote:
> On Apr 12, 1:20 am, Ginny > wrote:
>> Stan Horwitz wrote:
>>> In article >, hal wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:26:41 -0700, pyotr filipivich
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> Cie l'vie. What you have demonstrated is that you seem tonot
>>>>> consider your way of life as worth transmitting to the next
>>>>> generation, or advocating after a major disaster. I wish folks like
>>>>> you would wear a "donotresituate" sign, to spare scarce resources
>>>>> for those who aren't living useless lives.
>>>> It's always fascinating to me when reading or hearing of stories of
>>>> people surviving under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. It
>>>> seems that some people have this enormous will to live to matter what,
>>>> and no matter how bad things get. And then some people simply give up
>>>> and lay down an die. It's always fascinated me that this dichotomy of
>>>> human behavior existed and why.
>>> It depends on the situation. In a post nuclear holocaust, I wouldnot
>>> want to live if I was near the blast because the cancer and other
>>> effects of the radiation would take me down regardless of my will to
>>> live.
>>> A hurricane or other natural disaster is an entirely different matter.
>>> With a hurricane, I can get out of the way and simply return home and
>>> rebuild later if necessary. That's much the case with forest fires,
>>> tornadoes, etc. but with a nuclear blast, I honestly don't think I would
>>> want to live in the aftermath of one of those, considering that the
>>> nuclear weapons we have today make the ones dropped on Japan look like
>>> dime store firecrackers.
>> So the nuclear holocaust you're anticipating would be something like On
>> The Beach? I would have to concur then but if it was more like Jericho
>> then I think we would fight to live. It would depend on the degree of
>> total damage and area affected in relation to us.
>> --
>> Ginny - In West Australia
>
> The novel by Neville Shute was utterly unrealistic in its portrayal of
> a cloud of radioactivity slowly spreading around the world.
>
> The physics just doesn't work this way. First off, anything that is so
> super-hot as to kill in a short time tends not to last very long
> (decay rate is inversely proportional to lifetime, naturally). So the
> cloud that drifted around the world in "On the Beach" would be quite
> cool by the time it drifted around the world.
>
> (In fact, it would be lower in activity than the clouds of radioactive
> dust from large volcanic eruptions, such as Krakatoa, which ejected
> thousands of cubic meters of uranium and thorium into the upper
> atmosphere.....a dose in terms of megacuries which far exceeds the
> total megacuries in all of the bombs in the world's arsenals. Do the
> math on curies per person per year.)
>
> Secondly, even given such a fictional fallout, there are many
> solutions. Digging deep beneath the ground is one of the dumbest. Much
> easier to just set up rain roofs which divert fallout into trenches
> around buildings. Again, do the math.
>
> A dozen other solutions to this fictional scenario are easy to
> research.
>
> --Tim May

Well it was called fiction for more than one reason I'm sure

--
Ginny - In West Australia

On Mar 22, 11:01*am, blake murphy > wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:49:07 +0000, Burt Morgan wrote:
> > With Russia spending many -billions- on rearmament and new nuclear weapons, I
> > think it's time to clean out and make good the bomb shelter so that it's ready
> > for the inevitable nuclear war. I'm now restocking it with new food.
>
> > What would you guys suggest I stock my shelter with? Remember these goods have
> > to have a real good shelf life and provide enough nutrition for a family of four
> > for the duration.
>
> most of the people i see who fear armageddon are members of the 101st
> chairborne, so i suggest cheetos and mountain dew.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Funny....and true.

TMT

On Mar 22, 12:25*pm, "None4U" > wrote:
> "Too_Many_Tools" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Mar 21, 5:11 pm, Winston_Smith > wrote:
>
>
>
> > sf > wrote:
> > >On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:05:17 -0700 (PDT),
> > wrote:
>
> > >>On Mar 21, 3:55 pm, sf > wrote:
> > >>> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 11:55:15 -0700 (PDT),
>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>> >Sure, Russia and the Stans are still a threat, but we owe China a lot
> > >>> >of money and if we don't pay it back...
>
> > >>> I think our dept to China is part of our national defense.
>
> > >>Actually, China is indebted to us for far more than a few cheap
> > >>campaign contributions.
>
> > >Whatever dood. They aren't going to kill the goose that lays the
> > >golden egg. We keep buying their products and they won't bomb us. Is
> > >that simple enough for you to understand?
>
> > Their internal market is hugely bigger than the US market and they are
> > making impressive inroads into Africa and South America as they
> > develop. It may be the US is past egg producing age and the golden
> > goose is ready for the stew pot.
>
> You may be more right than any of us want to admit.
>
> Business goes to where the money will be..not where it was.
>
> TMT
>
> Diesel wrote. * China is very happy to stay in its borders and take care if
> itself. *Its also happy to make you whatever you want. *China and its people
> are of the opinion that the US should decide what the hell it wants. *They
> are not demanding that we do any business there at all. Or keep spending X
> amount of cash there. * Or even keep running deficits at our expense. *They
> believe whole heartedly that deficits are very bad. *And they will shift
> output to their domestic economy if we cut back on purchasing. * They have
> however made serious complaints about the US governments spending spree
> bringing the value of the dollar down. * And have been given serious
> concessions *to not cash in their dollar investments. *Its The government,
> Ours, * and their spending uncontrollably and greedy business that *are
> acting fickle. and are killing the US dollar . And our manufacturing. * And
> creating our problems. Not China.

No China is NOT happy to stay within their borders.

Better do your homework.

While Bush was screwing the American economy up, China has been very
busy setting up shop in South America and Africa undercutting American
business.

They are locking in deals for raw materials that we will need.

And becoming very much our competitor.

The Golden Age of The United States is over...

TMT

"Too_Many_Tools" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 22, 12:25 pm, "None4U" > wrote:
> "Too_Many_Tools" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Mar 21, 5:11 pm, Winston_Smith > wrote:
>
>
>
> > sf > wrote:
> > >On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:05:17 -0700 (PDT),
> > wrote:
>
> > >>On Mar 21, 3:55 pm, sf > wrote:
> > >>> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 11:55:15 -0700 (PDT),
>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>> >Sure, Russia and the Stans are still a threat, but we owe China a
> > >>> >lot
> > >>> >of money and if we don't pay it back...
>
> > >>> I think our dept to China is part of our national defense.
>
> > >>Actually, China is indebted to us for far more than a few cheap
> > >>campaign contributions.
>
> > >Whatever dood. They aren't going to kill the goose that lays the
> > >golden egg. We keep buying their products and they won't bomb us. Is
> > >that simple enough for you to understand?
>
> > Their internal market is hugely bigger than the US market and they are
> > making impressive inroads into Africa and South America as they
> > develop. It may be the US is past egg producing age and the golden
> > goose is ready for the stew pot.
>
> You may be more right than any of us want to admit.
>
> Business goes to where the money will be..not where it was.
>
> TMT
>
> Diesel wrote. China is very happy to stay in its borders and take care if
> itself. Its also happy to make you whatever you want. China and its people
> are of the opinion that the US should decide what the hell it wants. They
> are not demanding that we do any business there at all. Or keep spending X
> amount of cash there. Or even keep running deficits at our expense. They
> believe whole heartedly that deficits are very bad. And they will shift
> output to their domestic economy if we cut back on purchasing. They have
> however made serious complaints about the US governments spending spree
> bringing the value of the dollar down. And have been given serious
> concessions to not cash in their dollar investments. Its The government,
> Ours, and their spending uncontrollably and greedy business that are
> acting fickle. and are killing the US dollar . And our manufacturing. And
> creating our problems. Not China.

No China is NOT happy to stay within their borders.

Better do your homework.

While Bush was screwing the American economy up, China has been very
busy setting up shop in South America and Africa undercutting American
business.

The economy was screwed up long before Bush. Bush added seriously to the
debt. So he's just as responsible as anyone else who adds to the debt. I
agree , But the Chinese are staying in their borders . They are getting in
to places and doing it by business means. Not military. And its our cash
thats letting them do so.

They are locking in deals for raw materials that we will need.

And becoming very much our competitor.

The Golden Age of The United States is over...

TMT

"None4U" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "Too_Many_Tools" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Mar 22, 12:25 pm, "None4U" > wrote:
>> "Too_Many_Tools" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>> On Mar 21, 5:11 pm, Winston_Smith > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > sf > wrote:
>> > >On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:05:17 -0700 (PDT),
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > >>On Mar 21, 3:55 pm, sf > wrote:
>> > >>> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 11:55:15 -0700 (PDT),
>>
>> > >>> wrote:
>> > >>> >Sure, Russia and the Stans are still a threat, but we owe China a
>> > >>> >lot
>> > >>> >of money and if we don't pay it back...
>>
>> > >>> I think our dept to China is part of our national defense.
>>
>> > >>Actually, China is indebted to us for far more than a few cheap
>> > >>campaign contributions.
>>
>> > >Whatever dood. They aren't going to kill the goose that lays the
>> > >golden egg. We keep buying their products and they won't bomb us. Is
>> > >that simple enough for you to understand?
>>
>> > Their internal market is hugely bigger than the US market and they are
>> > making impressive inroads into Africa and South America as they
>> > develop. It may be the US is past egg producing age and the golden
>> > goose is ready for the stew pot.
>>
>> You may be more right than any of us want to admit.
>>
>> Business goes to where the money will be..not where it was.
>>
>> TMT
>>
>> Diesel wrote. China is very happy to stay in its borders and take care if
>> itself. Its also happy to make you whatever you want. China and its
>> people
>> are of the opinion that the US should decide what the hell it wants. They
>> are not demanding that we do any business there at all. Or keep spending
>> X
>> amount of cash there. Or even keep running deficits at our expense. They
>> believe whole heartedly that deficits are very bad. And they will shift
>> output to their domestic economy if we cut back on purchasing. They have
>> however made serious complaints about the US governments spending spree
>> bringing the value of the dollar down. And have been given serious
>> concessions to not cash in their dollar investments. Its The government,
>> Ours, and their spending uncontrollably and greedy business that are
>> acting fickle. and are killing the US dollar . And our manufacturing. And
>> creating our problems. Not China.
>
> No China is NOT happy to stay within their borders.
>
> Better do your homework.
>
> While Bush was screwing the American economy up, China has been very
> busy setting up shop in South America and Africa undercutting American
> business.
>
> The economy was screwed up long before Bush. Bush added seriously to the
> debt. So he's just as responsible as anyone else who adds to the debt. I
> agree , But the Chinese are staying in their borders . They are getting
> in to places and doing it by business means. Not military. And its our
> cash thats letting them do so.
>
> They are locking in deals for raw materials that we will need.
>
> And becoming very much our competitor.
>
> The Golden Age of The United States is over...
>
> TMT
>

Certainly is. But we still got the bomb. And we used it already. Twice.
And as soon as China gets the balls to start taking something over. For
instance, Middle East Oil. And the US citizens start demanding action.
They'll get it too.

In article
>,
Too_Many_Tools > wrote:

> On Mar 22, 11:01*am, blake murphy > wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:49:07 +0000, Burt Morgan wrote:
> > > With Russia spending many -billions- on rearmament and new nuclear
> > > weapons, I
> > > think it's time to clean out and make good the bomb shelter so that it's
> > > ready
> > > for the inevitable nuclear war. I'm now restocking it with new food.
> >
> > > What would you guys suggest I stock my shelter with? Remember these goods
> > > have
> > > to have a real good shelf life and provide enough nutrition for a family
> > > of four
> > > for the duration.
> >
> > most of the people i see who fear armageddon are members of the 101st
> > chairborne, so i suggest cheetos and mountain dew.
> >
> > your pal,
> > blake
>
> Funny....and true.
>
> TMT

Moon pies
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

On Mar 24, 2:17*pm, Omelet > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > *Strabo > wrote:
>
> > > >>> Crystal Palace (medcinal purposes of course)
>
> > > >> Crystal Palace??
>
> > > > Vodka.
>
> > > > Personally, if I were going to stock alcohol, I'd stock in Crystal
> > > > Springs. *That's grain alcohol so would go a bit further.
> > > > Needs serious diluting before drinking. <g>
>
> > > Grain alcohol is expensive and hard to get in some places.
>
> > > Vodka is a good choice as it can be used to prepare plant medications
> > > as well as a general solvent and intoxicant.
>
> > Crystal Springs is a brand of cheap vodka sold in the US. *Some people
> > use "grain alcohol" and "vodka" interchangeably. *In the US, vodka is
> > simply diluted grain alcohol. *Grain alcohol comes out of the still at
> > 190 proof. *Most vodka in the US is 80 proof, although other strengths
> > are rarely sold.
>
> I think you are thinking of Crystal Palace babe. Crystal Springs is 190
> proof grain alcohol. The "generic" of Everclear and runs around $15.00
> per bottle:
>
> http://i44.tinypic.com/55kw9f.jpg
>
> It ain't Vodka, trust me. <g>
> I DO know the difference.

You can burn it in a Zippo lighter.

> --
> Peace! Om

--Bryan
The album, "School of the Americas" is now available online.
Go to: http://www.thebonobos.com/
Click on the album cover to purchase. This is a fold out case
with a
lyrics booklet for only $9.99. That's right folks, only $9.99.

On Apr 13, 6:46*am, BOBOBOnoBO > wrote:
> On Mar 24, 2:17*pm, Omelet > wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > *Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > > In article >,
> > > *Strabo > wrote:
>
> > > > >>> Crystal Palace (medcinal purposes of course)
>
> > > > >> Crystal Palace??
>
> > > > > Vodka.
>
> > > > > Personally, if I were going to stock alcohol, I'd stock in Crystal
> > > > > Springs. *That's grain alcohol so would go a bit further.
> > > > > Needs serious diluting before drinking. <g>
>
> > > > Grain alcohol is expensive and hard to get in some places.
>
> > > > Vodka is a good choice as it can be used to prepare plant medications
> > > > as well as a general solvent and intoxicant.
>
> > > Crystal Springs is a brand of cheap vodka sold in the US. *Some people
> > > use "grain alcohol" and "vodka" interchangeably. *In the US, vodka is
> > > simply diluted grain alcohol. *Grain alcohol comes out of the still at
> > > 190 proof. *Most vodka in the US is 80 proof, although other strengths
> > > are rarely sold.
>
> > I think you are thinking of Crystal Palace babe. Crystal Springs is 190
> > proof grain alcohol. The "generic" of Everclear and runs around $15.00
> > per bottle:
>
> >http://i44.tinypic.com/55kw9f.jpg
>
> > It ain't Vodka, trust me. <g>
> > I DO know the difference.
>
> You can burn it in a Zippo lighter.

Until the wick gets wet with water! ;-)

John Kuthe...

On Apr 13, 7:07*am, John Kuthe > wrote:
> On Apr 13, 6:46*am, BOBOBOnoBO > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 24, 2:17*pm, Omelet > wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > *Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > > > In article >,
> > > > *Strabo > wrote:
>
> > > > > >>> Crystal Palace (medcinal purposes of course)
>
> > > > > >> Crystal Palace??
>
> > > > > > Vodka.
>
> > > > > > Personally, if I were going to stock alcohol, I'd stock in Crystal
> > > > > > Springs. *That's grain alcohol so would go a bit further.
> > > > > > Needs serious diluting before drinking. <g>
>
> > > > > Grain alcohol is expensive and hard to get in some places.
>
> > > > > Vodka is a good choice as it can be used to prepare plant medications
> > > > > as well as a general solvent and intoxicant.
>
> > > > Crystal Springs is a brand of cheap vodka sold in the US. *Some people
> > > > use "grain alcohol" and "vodka" interchangeably. *In the US, vodka is
> > > > simply diluted grain alcohol. *Grain alcohol comes out of the still at
> > > > 190 proof. *Most vodka in the US is 80 proof, although other strengths
> > > > are rarely sold.
>
> > > I think you are thinking of Crystal Palace babe. Crystal Springs is 190
> > > proof grain alcohol. The "generic" of Everclear and runs around $15.00
> > > per bottle:
>
> > >http://i44.tinypic.com/55kw9f.jpg
>
> > > It ain't Vodka, trust me. <g>
> > > I DO know the difference.
>
> > You can burn it in a Zippo lighter.
>
> Until the wick gets wet with water! ;-)

Always thinking about getting your wick wet.
>
> John Kuthe...

--Bryan
The album, "School of the Americas" is now available online.
Go to: http://www.thebonobos.com/
Click on the album cover to purchase. This is a fold out case
with a
lyrics booklet for only $9.99. That's right folks, only $9.99.

Seeing as how armchair survivalists are the topic, here.
Should be some storage food which is high price, which the
armchair commando has never eaten, which tastes awful, and
gives maximum intestinal distress.

What comes to mind are either buckets of whole wheat, or
maybe MRE.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Omelet" > wrote in message
news
> > most of the people i see who fear armageddon are members
> > of the 101st
> > chairborne, so i suggest cheetos and mountain dew.
> >
> > your pal,
> > blake
>
> Funny....and true.
>
> TMT

Moon pies
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

Omelet wrote:
> In article
> >,
> Too_Many_Tools > wrote:
>
>> On Mar 22, 11:01 am, blake murphy > wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:49:07 +0000, Burt Morgan wrote:
>>>> With Russia spending many -billions- on rearmament and new nuclear
>>>> weapons, I
>>>> think it's time to clean out and make good the bomb shelter so that it's
>>>> ready
>>>> for the inevitable nuclear war. I'm now restocking it with new food.
>>>> What would you guys suggest I stock my shelter with? Remember these goods
>>>> have
>>>> to have a real good shelf life and provide enough nutrition for a family
>>>> of four
>>>> for the duration.
>>> most of the people i see who fear armageddon are members of the 101st
>>> chairborne, so i suggest cheetos and mountain dew.
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake
>> Funny....and true.
>>
>> TMT
>
> Moon pies
>

And RC cola.