| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
What Teabaggerism Begets
Terry McAuliffe. Common trash. But when the choice is a teabagger or common trash, Virginia will vote common trash. That's what happens when the choice is common trash or teabagger. Lesser of two evils. What a shame there's no decent Republican in that race. Problem is, I don't know if any decent Republicans exist. Think they all controlled by teabaggers. The devil made me do it! |
What Teabaggerism Begets
|
What Teabaggerism Begets
|
What Teabaggerism Begets
|
What Teabaggerism Begets
"Mr.Luddite" says... I agree, it's time we got to hell out of the idea that we are the world police. "It's not rocket science. Done. I've dealt with the national debt. Implement it and consider the debt reduction goals in it sacrosanct." So is this the solution to our national debt with you have dealt? Mikek |
What Teabaggerism Begets
|
What Teabaggerism Begets
"amdx" wrote in message ... "Mr.Luddite" says... I agree, it's time we got to hell out of the idea that we are the world police. "It's not rocket science. Done. I've dealt with the national debt. Implement it and consider the debt reduction goals in it sacrosanct." So is this the solution to our national debt with you have dealt? Mikek ------------------------ Not sure to whom you addressed your question Mikek, but my point was that our Navy is structured for the Cold War Era when bigger and badder was important. That's not the case anymore. We could cut the size of our Naval battle groups in half and still be 5 times the size of any other Navy in the world. Hank's idea of giving a few away to trusted allies is an excellent idea. Maintains the original overall strength and shares the cost of operating and maintaining the fleets. One of the new carriers currently under construction is the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78). Total cost, including research and development is currently projected to be over $14 billion. When commissioned it will have a *daily* operating cost of $7 million. Might not pay off the national debt, but it's money we really don't need to spend. There are two more scheduled after the Ford. Meanwhile, the last of the Nimitz class aircraft carriers (which the Ford class replaces) won't be taken out of service until 2058. We donate about 25 percent of ex-Navy destroyers and cruisers to allies now, rather than scrap them. Why not give away a few battle groups? |
What Teabaggerism Begets
On Monday, October 7, 2013 11:59:14 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Flagged for the **** that it is. |
What Teabaggerism Begets
On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 9:30:27 AM UTC-4, Hank© wrote:
I could be wrong. No, you are correct. He IS a moron. |
What Teabaggerism Begets
On 10/8/2013 3:24 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... "Mr.Luddite" says... I agree, it's time we got to hell out of the idea that we are the world police. "It's not rocket science. Done. I've dealt with the national debt. Implement it and consider the debt reduction goals in it sacrosanct." So is this the solution to our national debt with you have dealt? Mikek WTF does that drivel have to do with my statement to Luddite?? This is what you said, "It's not rocket science. Done. I've dealt with the national debt. Implement it and consider the debt reduction goals in it sacrosanct." So what is your solution to spending $3.5 trillion when you only have $2.2 trillion of income? Mikek |
What Teabaggerism Begets
On 10/8/2013 5:07 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
"amdx" wrote in message ... "Mr.Luddite" says... I agree, it's time we got to hell out of the idea that we are the world police. "It's not rocket science. Done. I've dealt with the national debt. Implement it and consider the debt reduction goals in it sacrosanct." So is this the solution to our national debt with you have dealt? Mikek ------------------------ Not sure to whom you addressed your question Mikek, but my point was that our Navy is structured for the Cold War Era when bigger and badder was important. That's not the case anymore. We could cut the size of our Naval battle groups in half and still be 5 times the size of any other Navy in the world. Hank's idea of giving a few away to trusted allies is an excellent idea. Maintains the original overall strength and shares the cost of operating and maintaining the fleets. One of the new carriers currently under construction is the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78). Total cost, including research and development is currently projected to be over $14 billion. When commissioned it will have a *daily* operating cost of $7 million. Might not pay off the national debt, but it's money we really don't need to spend. There are two more scheduled after the Ford. Meanwhile, the last of the Nimitz class aircraft carriers (which the Ford class replaces) won't be taken out of service until 2058. We donate about 25 percent of ex-Navy destroyers and cruisers to allies now, rather than scrap them. Why not give away a few battle groups? My followup was to iboater. I get you want cut military spending. I do think other nations should pick up some of the tab. I don't know how many carriers we can get rid of, I think it has lot to do with whether we have enough ICBM's that are accurate and can reach anywhere. A carrier carries about 80 aircraft with multiple bombs. I don't have the knowledge to tell anyone how many carriers we need and I'm sure those that make the decisions have some saying the world has changed. I have some isolationism in me. Mikek |
What Teabaggerism Begets
"amdx" wrote in message ... On 10/8/2013 5:07 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: "amdx" wrote in message ... "Mr.Luddite" says... I agree, it's time we got to hell out of the idea that we are the world police. "It's not rocket science. Done. I've dealt with the national debt. Implement it and consider the debt reduction goals in it sacrosanct." So is this the solution to our national debt with you have dealt? Mikek ------------------------ Not sure to whom you addressed your question Mikek, but my point was that our Navy is structured for the Cold War Era when bigger and badder was important. That's not the case anymore. We could cut the size of our Naval battle groups in half and still be 5 times the size of any other Navy in the world. Hank's idea of giving a few away to trusted allies is an excellent idea. Maintains the original overall strength and shares the cost of operating and maintaining the fleets. One of the new carriers currently under construction is the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78). Total cost, including research and development is currently projected to be over $14 billion. When commissioned it will have a *daily* operating cost of $7 million. Might not pay off the national debt, but it's money we really don't need to spend. There are two more scheduled after the Ford. Meanwhile, the last of the Nimitz class aircraft carriers (which the Ford class replaces) won't be taken out of service until 2058. We donate about 25 percent of ex-Navy destroyers and cruisers to allies now, rather than scrap them. Why not give away a few battle groups? My followup was to iboater. I get you want cut military spending. I do think other nations should pick up some of the tab. I don't know how many carriers we can get rid of, I think it has lot to do with whether we have enough ICBM's that are accurate and can reach anywhere. A carrier carries about 80 aircraft with multiple bombs. I don't have the knowledge to tell anyone how many carriers we need and I'm sure those that make the decisions have some saying the world has changed. I have some isolationism in me. Mikek ------------------------- I don't think Iboater was responsible for the quote you responded to. Maybe that's the reason for the confusion. As to firepower on a modern aircraft carrier, I can give you a rough idea. One Nimitz class carrier has more firepower than our entire Pacific fleet had in WWII. One Nimitz class carrier has greater air power than 70 percent of all other nation's entire air forces. |
What Teabaggerism Begets
wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:53:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" nowayalso.jose.com wrote: says... I do agree we have more carriers than we need, unless we actually get in a war with a serious adversary. They are still big targets. When they asked Zumwalt how long our carriers would last in a war with the Soviets, he said "a couple days". ----------------------------- Good grief man, "Z-gram" Zumwalt said that as CNO back when I was bouncing around on a DE commissioned in 1955. A Nimitz class carrier is not your grandfather's carrier. Missle defense systems, both onboard and in the Aegis equipped ships in the battle group can track and simultaneously engage multiple targets. Some versions of Aegis can track 200 targets. These systems are extraordinary and, contrary to popular belief, a modern carrier is far from being a "sitting duck". Additionally, if they do get hit, it's not going to go belly up and sink. It would take an incredible number of direct hits, probably over a period of days to sink one. |
What Teabaggerism Begets
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... What war against a serious opponent have our military forces won since the end of WW II because of troops on the ground? I can't think of one. Iraq certainly wasn't a serious opponent. -------------------------- Maybe you should pose that question to an Iraq war vet who is missing a limb or two. |
What Teabaggerism Begets
wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:05:23 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" nowayalso.jose.com wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:53:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" nowayalso.jose.com wrote: says... I do agree we have more carriers than we need, unless we actually get in a war with a serious adversary. They are still big targets. When they asked Zumwalt how long our carriers would last in a war with the Soviets, he said "a couple days". ----------------------------- Good grief man, "Z-gram" Zumwalt said that as CNO back when I was bouncing around on a DE commissioned in 1955. A Nimitz class carrier is not your grandfather's carrier. Missle defense systems, both onboard and in the Aegis equipped ships in the battle group can track and simultaneously engage multiple targets. Some versions of Aegis can track 200 targets. These systems are extraordinary and, contrary to popular belief, a modern carrier is far from being a "sitting duck". Additionally, if they do get hit, it's not going to go belly up and sink. It would take an incredible number of direct hits, probably over a period of days to sink one. That is true if you are talking about Syria or even Iran The point was a small nuke would take out the whole battle group and it could come in on an ICBM. It might actually go off above the ceiling of most of that defense. A megaton even at 100,000 feet would push that carrier about 50 feet underwater along with all of the support ships. ------------------------ No nation on the planet is prepared to defend against an all-out nuclear war. Only defense is to never have one. Different situation. |
What Teabaggerism Begets
On 10/8/13 10:07 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... What war against a serious opponent have our military forces won since the end of WW II because of troops on the ground? I can't think of one. Iraq certainly wasn't a serious opponent. -------------------------- Maybe you should pose that question to an Iraq war vet who is missing a limb or two. I'm not minimizing the horrors of that way, but, seriously, Iraq was a fourth or fifth rate military power and was quickly defeated in both Bush administrations. |
What Teabaggerism Begets
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 10/8/13 10:07 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... What war against a serious opponent have our military forces won since the end of WW II because of troops on the ground? I can't think of one. Iraq certainly wasn't a serious opponent. -------------------------- Maybe you should pose that question to an Iraq war vet who is missing a limb or two. I'm not minimizing the horrors of that way, but, seriously, Iraq was a fourth or fifth rate military power and was quickly defeated in both Bush administrations. ------------------------- As it should have. Still, it takes a lot of logistics, technology and capability to send military forces halfway around the world to invade, fight and defeat an enemy on their own turf in such a short period of time. Lesson learned from past encounters. Go to win with overwhelming force and technology. Iraq's primary weapons were their Russian and Chinese made battle tanks, including the T-72 which was still Russia's main battle tank at the time. These are not exactly fourth or fifth rate military weapons. Still, US night vision, FLIR, radar and fire control easily made mincemeat out of these modern tanks, much to the embarrassment of the Russians. |
What Teabaggerism Begets
In article , "Mr. Luddite" says...
wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:53:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" nowayalso.jose.com wrote: says... I do agree we have more carriers than we need, unless we actually get in a war with a serious adversary. They are still big targets. When they asked Zumwalt how long our carriers would last in a war with the Soviets, he said "a couple days". ----------------------------- Good grief man, "Z-gram" Zumwalt said that as CNO back when I was bouncing around on a DE commissioned in 1955. A Nimitz class carrier is not your grandfather's carrier. Missle defense systems, both onboard and in the Aegis equipped ships in the battle group can track and simultaneously engage multiple targets. Some versions of Aegis can track 200 targets. These systems are extraordinary and, contrary to popular belief, a modern carrier is far from being a "sitting duck". Additionally, if they do get hit, it's not going to go belly up and sink. It would take an incredible number of direct hits, probably over a period of days to sink one. How soon you forget about the 40 year old French weapon called the Exocet. |
What Teabaggerism Begets
|
What Teabaggerism Begets
"BAR" wrote in message . .. In article , "Mr. Luddite" says... wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:53:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" nowayalso.jose.com wrote: says... I do agree we have more carriers than we need, unless we actually get in a war with a serious adversary. They are still big targets. When they asked Zumwalt how long our carriers would last in a war with the Soviets, he said "a couple days". ----------------------------- Good grief man, "Z-gram" Zumwalt said that as CNO back when I was bouncing around on a DE commissioned in 1955. A Nimitz class carrier is not your grandfather's carrier. Missle defense systems, both onboard and in the Aegis equipped ships in the battle group can track and simultaneously engage multiple targets. Some versions of Aegis can track 200 targets. These systems are extraordinary and, contrary to popular belief, a modern carrier is far from being a "sitting duck". Additionally, if they do get hit, it's not going to go belly up and sink. It would take an incredible number of direct hits, probably over a period of days to sink one. How soon you forget about the 40 year old French weapon called the Exocet. ------------------------------------ Deadly accurate, but it would take many, many direct hits to sink a carrier. They are designed for it. |
What Teabaggerism Begets
wrote:
On Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:13:11 -0400, BAR wrote: How soon you forget about the 40 year old French weapon called the Exocet. We have systems to shoot them down these days. The massive damage was caused by ship design, not the Exocet missile. Build the superstructure out of a flammable alloy. Really great warship design. Not! |
What Teabaggerism Begets
On 10/9/13 8:03 PM, Califbill wrote:
wrote: On Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:13:11 -0400, BAR wrote: How soon you forget about the 40 year old French weapon called the Exocet. We have systems to shoot them down these days. The massive damage was caused by ship design, not the Exocet missile. Build the superstructure out of a flammable alloy. Really great warship design. Not! Are you saying a few "modern" Exocets with HE warheads in piercing shells won't blow up/sink a destroyer? |
What Teabaggerism Begets
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 10/9/13 8:03 PM, Califbill wrote: wrote: On Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:13:11 -0400, BAR wrote: How soon you forget about the 40 year old French weapon called the Exocet. We have systems to shoot them down these days. The massive damage was caused by ship design, not the Exocet missile. Build the superstructure out of a flammable alloy. Really great warship design. Not! Are you saying a few "modern" Exocets with HE warheads in piercing shells won't blow up/sink a destroyer? Probably not. And you would have to have a few. I think the Exocet was not a huge ship killer, ala Harpoon missile, but ignited the superstructure. |
What Teabaggerism Begets
"Califbill" wrote in message ... "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/9/13 8:03 PM, Califbill wrote: wrote: On Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:13:11 -0400, BAR wrote: How soon you forget about the 40 year old French weapon called the Exocet. We have systems to shoot them down these days. The massive damage was caused by ship design, not the Exocet missile. Build the superstructure out of a flammable alloy. Really great warship design. Not! Are you saying a few "modern" Exocets with HE warheads in piercing shells won't blow up/sink a destroyer? Probably not. And you would have to have a few. I think the Exocet was not a huge ship killer, ala Harpoon missile, but ignited the superstructure. separator A well placed Exocet or any anti-ship missile might sink a destroyer, but not a cruiser and certainly not a modern carrier. Traditional Destroyer functions are typically performed by Frigates now and are still considered to be the most "expendable" in a major sea battle. They are designed and built as lower cost warships. Frigates were the former Destroyer Escorts ("DE's") of the fleet. DE's were re-designated as "FF" or "Frigate" in the 1970's. Then there are DDGs ...Guided Missile Destroyers. They are still based on low cost design. But that said, the USS Cole didn't sink after having a huge hole blown in it's side at the waterline. Compartment integrity and excellent damage control training saved it. Guided Missiles Cruisers, most equipped with Agies systems and cruise missiles are more valuable and are thereby designed to take hits. Nimitz class carriers just are not going to sink, even with multiple hits. Sure, a nuke will take them out, but that's not what they are designed for. You can't hit a US nuke sub. Nobody, including us, could find them without being told where they were. I witnessed this in the earlier versions on a ship equipped with very sophisticated, passive towed array sonar. The sonar system was capable of hearing and specifically identifying a surface ship hundreds of miles away, just based on the noise signature. Land based SOSUS systems could detect and identify for 1,000's of miles. There is a documented case of a land based SOSUS system located in Bermuda positively detecting and identifying a surface ship transiting the Straits of Gibraltar. The DE I was on was equipped with the first of the mobile, ship based passive towed array systems that was going through performance evaluations. We could detect and identify virtually anything within XXXX miles, including Soviet nukes. The Navy scheduled a test for our ship to detect the USS Skipjack, an early nuke fast attack sub that was quiet for it's time but was a marching band compared to today's US nukes. We had a general idea of where it should be, but after hours of trying to detect unsuccessfully, the test was terminated. The Skipjack then surfaced about 200 yards off our port bow. The Passive Towed Array system is now a standard component on most US anti-sub warships and are much, much more improved. The US nuke subs today are also the quietest subs on the planet and are virtually undetectable. |
What Teabaggerism Begets
On 10/10/2013 12:28 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
not a huge ship killer, ala Harpoon missile, but ignited the superstructure. separator A well placed Exocet or any anti-ship missile might sink a destroyer, but not a cruiser and certainly not a modern carrier. My newsreader sees Bill's post and your post as the same post. Try Thunderbird or another reader and see what happens. Either your Microsoft reader is not set up right or is defective. You and the goofy canadian are messing up our serene newsreading experience. ;-) |
What Teabaggerism Begets
Jeeze Hankie,
I'd use stronger words than "goofy" when describing Dickson, but then again y'all do share a "special" relationship eh? |
What Teabaggerism Begets
On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 06:34:23 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:
Jeeze Hankie, I'd use stronger words than "goofy" when describing Dickson, but then again y'all do share a "special" relationship eh? Don, did you ever define 'stupis'? Also, have you made a decision regarding unsociable versus sociable posts? Remember, I'm plenty willing to agree to 'sociable only' posting with you. -- John H. Hope you're having a great day! |
What Teabaggerism Begets
On Thursday, 10 October 2013 11:48:54 UTC-3, John H wrote:
On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 06:34:23 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: Jeeze Hankie, I'd use stronger words than "goofy" when describing Dickson, but then again y'all do share a "special" relationship eh? Don, did you ever define 'stupis'? Also, have you made a decision regarding unsociable versus sociable posts? Remember, I'm plenty willing to agree to 'sociable only' posting with you. John H. Thought you went camping, Johnny. I'll ponder your requests over our Thanksgiving Holiday this weekend. |
What Teabaggerism Begets
On 10/10/13 10:54 AM, True North wrote:
On Thursday, 10 October 2013 11:48:54 UTC-3, John H wrote: On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 06:34:23 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: Jeeze Hankie, I'd use stronger words than "goofy" when describing Dickson, but then again y'all do share a "special" relationship eh? Don, did you ever define 'stupis'? Also, have you made a decision regarding unsociable versus sociable posts? Remember, I'm plenty willing to agree to 'sociable only' posting with you. John H. Thought you went camping, Johnny. I'll ponder your requests over our Thanksgiving Holiday this weekend. Herring camping? Has anyone warned the squirrels? - |
What Teabaggerism Begets
|
What Teabaggerism Begets
On Thursday, 10 October 2013 11:59:40 UTC-3, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 10/10/13 10:54 AM, True North wrote: On Thursday, 10 October 2013 11:48:54 UTC-3, John H wrote: On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 06:34:23 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: Jeeze Hankie, I'd use stronger words than "goofy" when describing Dickson, but then again y'all do share a "special" relationship eh? Don, did you ever define 'stupis'? Also, have you made a decision regarding unsociable versus sociable posts? Remember, I'm plenty willing to agree to 'sociable only' posting with you. John H. Thought you went camping, Johnny. I'll ponder your requests over our Thanksgiving Holiday this weekend. Herring camping? Has anyone warned the squirrels? - Wonder if Johnny still eats them? |
What Teabaggerism Begets
On 10/10/13 11:10 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 06:34:23 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: Jeeze Hankie, I'd use stronger words than "goofy" when describing Dickson, but then again y'all do share a "special" relationship eh? Don, did you ever define 'stupis'? Also, have you made a decision regarding unsociable versus sociable posts? Remember, I'm plenty willing to agree to 'sociable only' posting with you. How anti-social! Now you've resorted to catching typos. I don't think Herring knows how to be sociable here. When I read his crap, he constantly was posting indirect insults about other posters and when this was pointed out, he'd try to waffle his way out of them by implying, "What, who me?...that wasn't insulting." |
What Teabaggerism Begets
On 10/10/13 11:11 AM, True North wrote:
On Thursday, 10 October 2013 11:59:40 UTC-3, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/10/13 10:54 AM, True North wrote: On Thursday, 10 October 2013 11:48:54 UTC-3, John H wrote: On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 06:34:23 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: Jeeze Hankie, I'd use stronger words than "goofy" when describing Dickson, but then again y'all do share a "special" relationship eh? Don, did you ever define 'stupis'? Also, have you made a decision regarding unsociable versus sociable posts? Remember, I'm plenty willing to agree to 'sociable only' posting with you. John H. Thought you went camping, Johnny. I'll ponder your requests over our Thanksgiving Holiday this weekend. Herring camping? Has anyone warned the squirrels? - Wonder if Johnny still eats them? He probably just likes to watch them bleed. |
What Teabaggerism Begets
On 10/10/2013 11:16 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 10/10/13 11:11 AM, True North wrote: On Thursday, 10 October 2013 11:59:40 UTC-3, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/10/13 10:54 AM, True North wrote: On Thursday, 10 October 2013 11:48:54 UTC-3, John H wrote: On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 06:34:23 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: Jeeze Hankie, I'd use stronger words than "goofy" when describing Dickson, but then again y'all do share a "special" relationship eh? Don, did you ever define 'stupis'? Also, have you made a decision regarding unsociable versus sociable posts? Remember, I'm plenty willing to agree to 'sociable only' posting with you. John H. Thought you went camping, Johnny. I'll ponder your requests over our Thanksgiving Holiday this weekend. Herring camping? Has anyone warned the squirrels? - Wonder if Johnny still eats them? He probably just likes to watch them bleed. Are you two sharing your psychotropic meds. You're acting just as stupis as Donnie boy. |
What Teabaggerism Begets
On 10/10/2013 11:13 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 10/10/13 11:10 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 06:34:23 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: Jeeze Hankie, I'd use stronger words than "goofy" when describing Dickson, but then again y'all do share a "special" relationship eh? Don, did you ever define 'stupis'? Also, have you made a decision regarding unsociable versus sociable posts? Remember, I'm plenty willing to agree to 'sociable only' posting with you. How anti-social! Now you've resorted to catching typos. I don't think Herring knows how to be sociable here. When I read his crap, he constantly was posting indirect insults about other posters and when this was pointed out, he'd try to waffle his way out of them by implying, "What, who me?...that wasn't insulting." Do you feel insulted? |
What Teabaggerism Begets
On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 07:54:44 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:
On Thursday, 10 October 2013 11:48:54 UTC-3, John H wrote: On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 06:34:23 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: Jeeze Hankie, I'd use stronger words than "goofy" when describing Dickson, but then again y'all do share a "special" relationship eh? Don, did you ever define 'stupis'? Also, have you made a decision regarding unsociable versus sociable posts? Remember, I'm plenty willing to agree to 'sociable only' posting with you. John H. Thought you went camping, Johnny. I'll ponder your requests over our Thanksgiving Holiday this weekend. Got back a couple hours ago. Does it take a whole weekend to decide whether or not to act sociable? -- John H. Hope you're having a great day! |
What Teabaggerism Begets
On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 08:11:42 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:
On Thursday, 10 October 2013 11:59:40 UTC-3, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/10/13 10:54 AM, True North wrote: On Thursday, 10 October 2013 11:48:54 UTC-3, John H wrote: On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 06:34:23 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: Jeeze Hankie, I'd use stronger words than "goofy" when describing Dickson, but then again y'all do share a "special" relationship eh? Don, did you ever define 'stupis'? Also, have you made a decision regarding unsociable versus sociable posts? Remember, I'm plenty willing to agree to 'sociable only' posting with you. John H. Thought you went camping, Johnny. I'll ponder your requests over our Thanksgiving Holiday this weekend. Herring camping? Has anyone warned the squirrels? - Wonder if Johnny still eats them? Nope, haven't eaten squirrel since I left home after high school. -- John H. Hope you're having a great day! |
What Teabaggerism Begets
On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:10:26 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 06:34:23 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: Jeeze Hankie, I'd use stronger words than "goofy" when describing Dickson, but then again y'all do share a "special" relationship eh? Don, did you ever define 'stupis'? Also, have you made a decision regarding unsociable versus sociable posts? Remember, I'm plenty willing to agree to 'sociable only' posting with you. How anti-social! Now you've resorted to catching typos. Was *that* what it was? What was he trying to call me...stupid? Hell, I thought *he* was the one into typo catching! No wonder he didn't want to address the question. -- John H. Hope you're having a great day! |
What Teabaggerism Begets
On 10/13/2013 4:23 PM, John H wrote:
On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 07:54:44 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: On Thursday, 10 October 2013 11:48:54 UTC-3, John H wrote: On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 06:34:23 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: Jeeze Hankie, I'd use stronger words than "goofy" when describing Dickson, but then again y'all do share a "special" relationship eh? Don, did you ever define 'stupis'? Also, have you made a decision regarding unsociable versus sociable posts? Remember, I'm plenty willing to agree to 'sociable only' posting with you. John H. Thought you went camping, Johnny. I'll ponder your requests over our Thanksgiving Holiday this weekend. Got back a couple hours ago. Does it take a whole weekend to decide whether or not to act sociable? Be patient. The cold weather up there makes them kind of sluggish. |
What Teabaggerism Begets
On 10/13/2013 4:23 PM, John H wrote:
On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 07:54:44 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: On Thursday, 10 October 2013 11:48:54 UTC-3, John H wrote: On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 06:34:23 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: Jeeze Hankie, I'd use stronger words than "goofy" when describing Dickson, but then again y'all do share a "special" relationship eh? Don, did you ever define 'stupis'? Also, have you made a decision regarding unsociable versus sociable posts? Remember, I'm plenty willing to agree to 'sociable only' posting with you. John H. Thought you went camping, Johnny. I'll ponder your requests over our Thanksgiving Holiday this weekend. Got back a couple hours ago. Does it take a whole weekend to decide whether or not to act sociable? Ha, we were camping in Maine again yesterday:) Jessi took fifth in her first weekend back with the big bikes yesterday.. Two falls in the qualifier, and stayed on two in the final... Since don won't be nice I will take this in another direction.. Camping.. We picked up a "Mr. Buddy" propane heater and used it in our huge tent (12x22) it worked quite well for the 37 degree temps outside.. Brought our tent up to about 55 (guessing). My guess is based on the fact that at one point during the night I was on top of my blankets... and was not cold. Did pretty good for not camping in a year and three weeks.. Got to the site at 9:30 pm and by midnight I had the tent and site up, fire going, and we ate us a nice steak. Had my kid sleeping warm with the dogs mby midnight. Racing was scarey, instead of "sandbagging" a slower division to come back, she jumped right back into the fire heading for the Female Class in the NESC *at the very same track that bit her last year*.... Awesome race for Jess. Not a lot of competition as the 4 girls that beat her were definitely faster (she used to keep with all of them) and Gina has really stepped up her game leading the division and riding like the Pro she is.... The 5 girls Jess beat, were a lot slower.... so yeah, today she was the slowest "fast" kid.... Same old same old on the way home, idiots jumping in front of the hauler, driving like assholes and getting ****ed because I can't come off the stoplights like a dragster:) Anyway, just figured I would give the boys more to cry about, have a great day John, hope your camping weekend went as soon as ours... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:01 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com