Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
 

In article , naled24511
@mypacks.net says...

wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2011 07:52:59 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 20:50:05 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 May 2011 17:24:54 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 13:04:47 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 12:32:07 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 07:56:42 -0400, wrote:

In articleCIGdnQVNtt0Kp0TQnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@earthlink .com, naled24511
@mypacks.net says...
Canuck57 wrote:
Mubarak was no dictator
Bull****.
The power behind the throne in Egypt was and is the military.
The power behind every government is ultimately the military.
You just have to look at our last big "state vs feds" situation, the
civil rights decisions of the 50s and 60s.
A good example is when Orval Faubus challenged the law, Eisenhower
sent in the 101st Airborne,.
Or when the governor of Ohio sent in the National Guard to murder
unarmed students at Kent State.
Technically the national guard is not really the military. They work
for the governor, not the federal government but the general point is
valid.
All laws are ultimately enforced at the point of a government gun and
the military has the biggest guns..
Please...there's no need to split the hair that fine.
You correctly assigned the blame to the governor but it would be
incorrect to extend that to the pentagon or Nixon, as much fun as that
might be. The national guard works for the state unless they are
nationalized. A lot of people say that is the "militia"
Most of the kids at Kent State were protesting Nixon's ordering of the
invasion of Cambodia, so please don't be so eager to let Nixon or the
Pentagon off the hook. While Nixon didn't order in the National Guard
goon squad, there wouldn't have been a protest sans Nixon's escalation
of that idiotic war.

I will join you in blaming Nixon and Kissinger for still being in that
war but they had nothing to do with whatever moron (probably a captain
or major) who decided it was a good idea to issue a bunch of weekend
warriors live ammo in a situation where they probably should not have
even had rifles. This was a place for shields and batons like we see
these days in riots.
I think part of the problem was people in charge did not understand
the total breakdown in respect for authority that happened in the 60s.
The National Guard, showing up in full battle gear, did not impress
these kids. That misunderstanding and the presence of live ammo
resulted in the most likely scenario. Students got shot
I know this is going to hurt, but the same can be said of the young
people protesting in the Middle East. They're not impressed with guns.


The breakdown in "respect for authority" back then was because those in
authority no longer deserved respect. Whoever issued live ammunition to
those National Guard thugs at Kent State should have been put on trial.

There were plenty of people who should have stood trial. Did anyone go
to jail for burning down the buildings at the college? How about the
ones who assaulted the firemen who came to put out the fires?
That was what prompted the armed response in the first place.


1. My recollection is that it was the ROTC building that was set afire,
rather than "buildings." But my recollection could be wrong. No one was
charged with the arson.

Correct, no one was charged with arson, even though arson occurred.

2. The Guard was called in to quell a rowdy, mostly drunk crowd of
students, biker gang members and others who began pitching beer bottles
at the local police. No firemen were involved at that point. The local
mayor called the governor, who agreed to send in the Guard.

Assaulting police officers, arson, drunk and disorderly, all crimes.

Once again, whoever issued ammo to the Guard should have been put on trial.

As should those who committed ANY crimes.

Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper... is it?
 

On Tue, 24 May 2011 12:14:37 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Tue, 24 May 2011 10:51:51 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 24 May 2011 07:07:35 -0400, Jay wrote:

Did you mean to say "threads"? Why don't you bring this thread back on
topic?


Good question

Is your gas getting cheaper?

We are seeing a little easing ($3.79 seems to be about it) . I am
still stalling before I go fill up all my cans. I have enough for a
few trips out around the bay so I am like one of those people on the
interstate, hoping to see a sign a little cheaper at the next exit
;-)

I've actually seen a few stations where diesel is close to the same price as regular. Yesterday I
paid $3.82 a gallon for diesel down in Tappahanock, VA.

I suppose the current administration has decided it's making enough money from fuel and can slack
off a bit.

I don't have to suppose that you're ignorant, racist, and a liar.

Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper... is it?
 

wrote in message ...

On Tue, 24 May 2011 07:07:35 -0400, Jay wrote:

Did you mean to say "threads"? Why don't you bring this thread back on
topic?


Good question

Is your gas getting cheaper?

We are seeing a little easing ($3.79 seems to be about it) . I am
still stalling before I go fill up all my cans. I have enough for a
few trips out around the bay so I am like one of those people on the
interstate, hoping to see a sign a little cheaper at the next exit
;-)


Reply:
We are seeing a little easing in prices. Paid $4.37 for diesel yesterday.
Paid $4.54 a week ago, in Willits while going north to Shelter Cove Kayak
derby.

Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
 

On Tue, 24 May 2011 10:47:02 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 24 May 2011 07:52:59 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 20:50:05 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 May 2011 17:24:54 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 13:04:47 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 12:32:07 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 07:56:42 -0400, wrote:

In articleCIGdnQVNtt0Kp0TQnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@earthlink .com, naled24511
@mypacks.net says...
Canuck57 wrote:
Mubarak was no dictator
Bull****.
The power behind the throne in Egypt was and is the military.
The power behind every government is ultimately the military.
You just have to look at our last big "state vs feds" situation, the
civil rights decisions of the 50s and 60s.
A good example is when Orval Faubus challenged the law, Eisenhower
sent in the 101st Airborne,.
Or when the governor of Ohio sent in the National Guard to murder
unarmed students at Kent State.
Technically the national guard is not really the military. They work
for the governor, not the federal government but the general point is
valid.
All laws are ultimately enforced at the point of a government gun and
the military has the biggest guns..
Please...there's no need to split the hair that fine.
You correctly assigned the blame to the governor but it would be
incorrect to extend that to the pentagon or Nixon, as much fun as that
might be. The national guard works for the state unless they are
nationalized. A lot of people say that is the "militia"

Most of the kids at Kent State were protesting Nixon's ordering of the
invasion of Cambodia, so please don't be so eager to let Nixon or the
Pentagon off the hook. While Nixon didn't order in the National Guard
goon squad, there wouldn't have been a protest sans Nixon's escalation
of that idiotic war.


I will join you in blaming Nixon and Kissinger for still being in that
war but they had nothing to do with whatever moron (probably a captain
or major) who decided it was a good idea to issue a bunch of weekend
warriors live ammo in a situation where they probably should not have
even had rifles. This was a place for shields and batons like we see
these days in riots.
I think part of the problem was people in charge did not understand
the total breakdown in respect for authority that happened in the 60s.
The National Guard, showing up in full battle gear, did not impress
these kids. That misunderstanding and the presence of live ammo
resulted in the most likely scenario. Students got shot

I know this is going to hurt, but the same can be said of the young
people protesting in the Middle East. They're not impressed with guns.



The breakdown in "respect for authority" back then was because those in
authority no longer deserved respect. Whoever issued live ammunition to
those National Guard thugs at Kent State should have been put on trial.

There were plenty of people who should have stood trial. Did anyone go
to jail for burning down the buildings at the college? How about the
ones who assaulted the firemen who came to put out the fires?
That was what prompted the armed response in the first place.

So, people who murder unarmed students are somehow equivalent to those
who throw rocks without much result?

Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 24 May 2011 10:47:02 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 24 May 2011 07:52:59 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 20:50:05 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 May 2011 17:24:54 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 13:04:47 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 12:32:07 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 07:56:42 -0400, wrote:

In articleCIGdnQVNtt0Kp0TQnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@earthlink .com, naled24511
@mypacks.net says...
Canuck57 wrote:
Mubarak was no dictator
Bull****.
The power behind the throne in Egypt was and is the military.
The power behind every government is ultimately the military.
You just have to look at our last big "state vs feds" situation, the
civil rights decisions of the 50s and 60s.
A good example is when Orval Faubus challenged the law, Eisenhower
sent in the 101st Airborne,.
Or when the governor of Ohio sent in the National Guard to murder
unarmed students at Kent State.
Technically the national guard is not really the military. They work
for the governor, not the federal government but the general point is
valid.
All laws are ultimately enforced at the point of a government gun and
the military has the biggest guns..
Please...there's no need to split the hair that fine.
You correctly assigned the blame to the governor but it would be
incorrect to extend that to the pentagon or Nixon, as much fun as that
might be. The national guard works for the state unless they are
nationalized. A lot of people say that is the "militia"

Most of the kids at Kent State were protesting Nixon's ordering of the
invasion of Cambodia, so please don't be so eager to let Nixon or the
Pentagon off the hook. While Nixon didn't order in the National Guard
goon squad, there wouldn't have been a protest sans Nixon's escalation
of that idiotic war.


I will join you in blaming Nixon and Kissinger for still being in that
war but they had nothing to do with whatever moron (probably a captain
or major) who decided it was a good idea to issue a bunch of weekend
warriors live ammo in a situation where they probably should not have
even had rifles. This was a place for shields and batons like we see
these days in riots.
I think part of the problem was people in charge did not understand
the total breakdown in respect for authority that happened in the 60s.
The National Guard, showing up in full battle gear, did not impress
these kids. That misunderstanding and the presence of live ammo
resulted in the most likely scenario. Students got shot

I know this is going to hurt, but the same can be said of the young
people protesting in the Middle East. They're not impressed with guns.



The breakdown in "respect for authority" back then was because those in
authority no longer deserved respect. Whoever issued live ammunition to
those National Guard thugs at Kent State should have been put on trial.

There were plenty of people who should have stood trial. Did anyone go
to jail for burning down the buildings at the college? How about the
ones who assaulted the firemen who came to put out the fires?
That was what prompted the armed response in the first place.

So, people who murder unarmed students are somehow equivalent to those
who throw rocks without much result?

You pick and choose. You ignored arson and battery on police officers.

Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
 

On Tue, 24 May 2011 15:44:12 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 24 May 2011 11:12:40 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

The breakdown in "respect for authority" back then was because those in
authority no longer deserved respect. Whoever issued live ammunition to
those National Guard thugs at Kent State should have been put on trial.

There were plenty of people who should have stood trial. Did anyone go
to jail for burning down the buildings at the college? How about the
ones who assaulted the firemen who came to put out the fires?
That was what prompted the armed response in the first place.


1. My recollection is that it was the ROTC building that was set afire,
rather than "buildings." But my recollection could be wrong. No one was
charged with the arson.

It begs the question, why not? Any time you have arson the potential
for loss of life exists and when they attacked the fire department
that chance escalated.

Correct, but there's a difference between potential loss of life and
actual loss of life, esp. in a courtroom.

2. The Guard was called in to quell a rowdy, mostly drunk crowd of
students, biker gang members and others who began pitching beer bottles
at the local police. No firemen were involved at that point. The local
mayor called the governor, who agreed to send in the Guard.

I suppose the question might be, who should they have called? Do you
think Ohio State Troopers are any less likely to shoot people?
I do agree they *might* be better trained but if they are like
Maryland or Florida state troopers they are just "speeder maids"

Once again, whoever issued ammo to the Guard should have been put on trial.

We are still not sure what orders they had. If you can believe some
reports it was a sargent who started shooting first. There are other
reports of someone shooting at them first but I am skeptical.
I agree they should have had riot trained troops there, maybe city
cops from Cleveland, not weekend warriors but I bet if you did, there
would be a lot more students beaten to a bloody pulp.

Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
 

Sour Krause wrote:
In articleO6CdnVEpnZLuPUbQnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@earthlink .com, naled24511
@mypacks.net says...

BAR wrote:

In , naled24511
@mypacks.net says...

wrote:

On Mon, 23 May 2011 20:50:05 -0400, wrote:


On Mon, 23 May 2011 17:24:54 -0400,
wrote:


wrote:

On Mon, 23 May 2011 13:04:47 -0400,
wrote:


wrote:

On Mon, 23 May 2011 12:32:07 -0400,
wrote:


wrote:

On Mon, 23 May 2011 07:56:42 -0400, wrote:


In articleCIGdnQVNtt0Kp0TQnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@earthlink .com, naled24511
@mypacks.net says...

Canuck57 wrote:

Mubarak was no dictator

Bull****.

The power behind the throne in Egypt was and is the military.

The power behind every government is ultimately the military.
You just have to look at our last big "state vs feds" situation, the
civil rights decisions of the 50s and 60s.
A good example is when Orval Faubus challenged the law, Eisenhower
sent in the 101st Airborne,.

Or when the governor of Ohio sent in the National Guard to murder
unarmed students at Kent State.

Technically the national guard is not really the military. They work
for the governor, not the federal government but the general point is
valid.
All laws are ultimately enforced at the point of a government gun and
the military has the biggest guns..

Please...there's no need to split the hair that fine.

You correctly assigned the blame to the governor but it would be
incorrect to extend that to the pentagon or Nixon, as much fun as that
might be. The national guard works for the state unless they are
nationalized. A lot of people say that is the "militia"

Most of the kids at Kent State were protesting Nixon's ordering of the
invasion of Cambodia, so please don't be so eager to let Nixon or the
Pentagon off the hook. While Nixon didn't order in the National Guard
goon squad, there wouldn't have been a protest sans Nixon's escalation
of that idiotic war.


I will join you in blaming Nixon and Kissinger for still being in that
war but they had nothing to do with whatever moron (probably a captain
or major) who decided it was a good idea to issue a bunch of weekend
warriors live ammo in a situation where they probably should not have
even had rifles. This was a place for shields and batons like we see
these days in riots.
I think part of the problem was people in charge did not understand
the total breakdown in respect for authority that happened in the 60s.
The National Guard, showing up in full battle gear, did not impress
these kids. That misunderstanding and the presence of live ammo
resulted in the most likely scenario. Students got shot

I know this is going to hurt, but the same can be said of the young
people protesting in the Middle East. They're not impressed with guns.


The breakdown in "respect for authority" back then was because those in
authority no longer deserved respect. Whoever issued live ammunition to
those National Guard thugs at Kent State should have been put on trial.

I guess 8 years of Democrat presidents built up such distrust in
authority that the youth of America was despondent.


Go back to sleep, birther. This is a discussion for the adults.

What what skillful debate tools you bring to the table...

WAFA was never clever.

Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper... is it?
 

On May 24, 1:26*pm, "Califbill" wrote:
wrote in messagenews:s8hnt6pto27u2tg4fqhap3u77n287ohpas@4ax .com...

On Tue, 24 May 2011 07:07:35 -0400, Jay wrote:
Did you mean to say "threads"? Why don't you bring this thread back on
topic?

Good question

Is your gas getting cheaper?

We are seeing a little easing ($3.79 seems to be about it) . I am
still stalling before I go fill up all my cans. I have enough for a
few trips out around the bay so I am like one of those people on the
interstate, hoping to see a sign a little cheaper at the next exit
;-)

Reply:
We are seeing a little easing in prices. *Paid $4.37 for diesel yesterday.
Paid $4.54 a week ago, in Willits while going north to Shelter Cove Kayak
derby.

That'll probably turn around soon,. Oil went back up to close out at
$99.00 USD per barrel today.

Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
 

In article , naled24511
@mypacks.net says...

BAR wrote:
In , naled24511
@mypacks.net says...
wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 20:50:05 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 May 2011 17:24:54 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 13:04:47 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 12:32:07 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 07:56:42 -0400, wrote:

In articleCIGdnQVNtt0Kp0TQnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@earthlink .com, naled24511
@mypacks.net says...
Canuck57 wrote:
Mubarak was no dictator
Bull****.
The power behind the throne in Egypt was and is the military.
The power behind every government is ultimately the military.
You just have to look at our last big "state vs feds" situation, the
civil rights decisions of the 50s and 60s.
A good example is when Orval Faubus challenged the law, Eisenhower
sent in the 101st Airborne,.
Or when the governor of Ohio sent in the National Guard to murder
unarmed students at Kent State.
Technically the national guard is not really the military. They work
for the governor, not the federal government but the general point is
valid.
All laws are ultimately enforced at the point of a government gun and
the military has the biggest guns..
Please...there's no need to split the hair that fine.
You correctly assigned the blame to the governor but it would be
incorrect to extend that to the pentagon or Nixon, as much fun as that
might be. The national guard works for the state unless they are
nationalized. A lot of people say that is the "militia"
Most of the kids at Kent State were protesting Nixon's ordering of the
invasion of Cambodia, so please don't be so eager to let Nixon or the
Pentagon off the hook. While Nixon didn't order in the National Guard
goon squad, there wouldn't have been a protest sans Nixon's escalation
of that idiotic war.

I will join you in blaming Nixon and Kissinger for still being in that
war but they had nothing to do with whatever moron (probably a captain
or major) who decided it was a good idea to issue a bunch of weekend
warriors live ammo in a situation where they probably should not have
even had rifles. This was a place for shields and batons like we see
these days in riots.
I think part of the problem was people in charge did not understand
the total breakdown in respect for authority that happened in the 60s.
The National Guard, showing up in full battle gear, did not impress
these kids. That misunderstanding and the presence of live ammo
resulted in the most likely scenario. Students got shot
I know this is going to hurt, but the same can be said of the young
people protesting in the Middle East. They're not impressed with guns.


The breakdown in "respect for authority" back then was because those in
authority no longer deserved respect. Whoever issued live ammunition to
those National Guard thugs at Kent State should have been put on trial.

I guess 8 years of Democrat presidents built up such distrust in
authority that the youth of America was despondent.


Go back to sleep, birther. This is a discussion for the adults.

That is the level of discourse we have come to expect from you Harry.

Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
 

In article , naled24511
@mypacks.net says...

wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2011 07:52:59 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 20:50:05 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 May 2011 17:24:54 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 13:04:47 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 12:32:07 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 07:56:42 -0400, wrote:

In articleCIGdnQVNtt0Kp0TQnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@earthlink .com, naled24511
@mypacks.net says...
Canuck57 wrote:
Mubarak was no dictator
Bull****.
The power behind the throne in Egypt was and is the military.
The power behind every government is ultimately the military.
You just have to look at our last big "state vs feds" situation, the
civil rights decisions of the 50s and 60s.
A good example is when Orval Faubus challenged the law, Eisenhower
sent in the 101st Airborne,.
Or when the governor of Ohio sent in the National Guard to murder
unarmed students at Kent State.
Technically the national guard is not really the military. They work
for the governor, not the federal government but the general point is
valid.
All laws are ultimately enforced at the point of a government gun and
the military has the biggest guns..
Please...there's no need to split the hair that fine.
You correctly assigned the blame to the governor but it would be
incorrect to extend that to the pentagon or Nixon, as much fun as that
might be. The national guard works for the state unless they are
nationalized. A lot of people say that is the "militia"
Most of the kids at Kent State were protesting Nixon's ordering of the
invasion of Cambodia, so please don't be so eager to let Nixon or the
Pentagon off the hook. While Nixon didn't order in the National Guard
goon squad, there wouldn't have been a protest sans Nixon's escalation
of that idiotic war.

I will join you in blaming Nixon and Kissinger for still being in that
war but they had nothing to do with whatever moron (probably a captain
or major) who decided it was a good idea to issue a bunch of weekend
warriors live ammo in a situation where they probably should not have
even had rifles. This was a place for shields and batons like we see
these days in riots.
I think part of the problem was people in charge did not understand
the total breakdown in respect for authority that happened in the 60s.
The National Guard, showing up in full battle gear, did not impress
these kids. That misunderstanding and the presence of live ammo
resulted in the most likely scenario. Students got shot
I know this is going to hurt, but the same can be said of the young
people protesting in the Middle East. They're not impressed with guns.


The breakdown in "respect for authority" back then was because those in
authority no longer deserved respect. Whoever issued live ammunition to
those National Guard thugs at Kent State should have been put on trial.

There were plenty of people who should have stood trial. Did anyone go
to jail for burning down the buildings at the college? How about the
ones who assaulted the firemen who came to put out the fires?
That was what prompted the armed response in the first place.


1. My recollection is that it was the ROTC building that was set afire,
rather than "buildings." But my recollection could be wrong. No one was
charged with the arson.

The ROTC building is still a building. People could have died in the
fire set by the arsonists.

2. The Guard was called in to quell a rowdy, mostly drunk crowd of
students, biker gang members and others who began pitching beer bottles
at the local police. No firemen were involved at that point. The local
mayor called the governor, who agreed to send in the Guard.

Blame the governor, not the president.

Once again, whoever issued ammo to the Guard should have been put on trial.