Apollo 11 Lunar landing - 40th aniversary

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
J. Clarke wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
You poor slobs who live in California pay your share plus a hell of
a lot more. You pay for every government give away program the libs
have thought up during the last 30 years or so......I couldn't wait
to leave that state. As soon as I retired, I sold my house and moved
up here to Oregon.

LOL! What a typical rightard hypocrite. You enjoy the jobs that
California has and then, when you RETIRE and don't need to work
anymore you go where the jobs aren't.

I retired
on August 18th, and by Christmas of that year, I was moved into this
house here in Salem. Of course, for 20 years before that, I had all
my vehicles registered here (for $15 a year, instead of the hundreds
of dollars California charges) I also bought every big ticket item
by mail order,

In short, you're a slimy crook. A thief.

Ray, you're coming across as a typical netloon.

He admitted to stealing. What would you call it?

--
Ray Fischer


You, the pot calling the kettle black

In message , Ray Fischer
writes
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH wrote:
You know its going to eclipse the costs for the Vietnam war, and we
remember how that one turned out didn't we? If you're not old enough,
we lost.

THAT IS WRONG ... it is the left-wing propaganda.

We won the war. We were absolutly in control of S. Vietnam
after the
ill-fated Tet Offensive of the Viet Cong, which was promptly
and totally defeated. The South was firmly in our hands,and

Irrelevant. Your propaganda doesn't count. The fact is that the US
retreated and the "enemy" won.

Militarily wining a battle does not win the war.

Besides you were not absolutely in control of S Vietnam. You are
thinking in a purely WW2 military battle field scenario.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
DRS wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message

DRS wrote:
"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
"Bill Graham" wrote:

It's high time we
started to use nuclear power to generate our electricity.

This on the other hand had been recognized as a particularly bad
idea a few decades ago, if not on 28 March 1979 then at the very
least on 26 April 1986.

Two accidents due in large part to poor design is not an argument
against nuclear per se.

A better argument is the fact that, as yet, there is no way to dispose
of nuclear waste.

Waste reprocessing.

Where?

The "hottest" nuclear waste can now be brought down to
the level of the original uranium ore within hundreds of years by
"burning"
it in a nuclear reactor along with the other fuel.

But such disposal, while possible, does not actually exist.

--
Ray Fischer


http://www.srs.gov/general/programs/...tion/index.htm

Educate yourself Ray. There is a disposal method currently available.

Chris H wrote:
In message , Ray Fischer
writes
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH wrote:
You know its going to eclipse the costs for the Vietnam war, and we
remember how that one turned out didn't we? If you're not old enough,
we lost.
THAT IS WRONG ... it is the left-wing propaganda.

We won the war. We were absolutly in control of S. Vietnam
after the
ill-fated Tet Offensive of the Viet Cong, which was promptly
and totally defeated. The South was firmly in our hands,and
Irrelevant. Your propaganda doesn't count. The fact is that the US
retreated and the "enemy" won.


The last sentence above is, of course, correct, and is the essence of
the matter. However "retreat" is not the correct word, which is
"abandoned our allies and left the battlefield intentionally
accepting that our allies might be defeated".


Militarily wining a battle does not win the war.

Besides you were not absolutely in control of S Vietnam.

We were in control after the Tet offensive failed abysmally.

We came, we conquered, we left the battlefield for the enemy.
This was an INTENTIONAL loss which pleased its sponsors,
the USA left wing, mightily. They were delighted.

Doug McDonald

Chris H wrote:
In message , Ray Fischer
writes
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH wrote:
You know its going to eclipse the costs for the Vietnam war, and
we remember how that one turned out didn't we? If you're not old
enough, we lost.

THAT IS WRONG ... it is the left-wing propaganda.

We won the war. We were absolutly in control of S. Vietnam
after the
ill-fated Tet Offensive of the Viet Cong, which was promptly
and totally defeated. The South was firmly in our hands,and

Irrelevant. Your propaganda doesn't count. The fact is that the US
retreated and the "enemy" won.

Militarily wining a battle does not win the war.

Besides you were not absolutely in control of S Vietnam. You are
thinking in a purely WW2 military battle field scenario.

Vo Nguyen Giap would disagree with you on the point of who was in control--I
don't have the quote in front of me but it was to the effect that his
organization in the South was almost totally destroyed and that it would
take a decade or more to rebuild it. He expressed shock that having
trounced him so thoroughly the US took their ball and went home instead of
expending the relatively trivial effort that would be required to finish the
job.

"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message , Jürgen Exner
writes
"Atheist Chaplain" wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
You do know that the rest of the world points and laughs at what passes
for
"Health care" in the US, the "Richest" country in the world is too tight
fisted to bother about actually looking after its less fortunate
citizens,
not very "civilized" now is it.

Well, there are numerous other reasons why people are starting to
distinguish between industrialized and civilized and refuse to call the
US the latter. Health care is just peanuts in that bucket.

jue


Most of the world does not regard the US as "civilised"
It also tends to see the US in the same light as N.Korea, china etc.

Since the recent depression started the US is not that industrialised
either.....

Ahhhhh.....Pardon me, Chris, but I don't think you are qualified to tell us
just what the, "rest of the world" thinks about the US......I doubt
seriously if they think of us as being in the same light as, "N. Korea and
China, etc." This may be what, "Chris H" thinks, but not the rest of the
world.

"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH wrote in message
...
Bill Graham wrote:

You know its going to eclipse the costs for the Vietnam war, and we
remember how that one turned out didn't we? If you're not old enough,
we lost.

THAT IS WRONG ... it is the left-wing propaganda.

We won the war. We were absolutly in control of S. Vietnam
after the
ill-fated Tet Offensive of the Viet Cong, which was promptly
and totally defeated. The South was firmly in our hands,and
th eViet Cong decimated.

Then, the left-wingers in the US took over. They dearly WANTED
the Communists to win, so they said "we're leaving, PERIOD",
and won;t help the South if you reattack them. That's EXECTLY
what happened. The North reattacked as we left, and we didn't help
the South defend itself. The major Communist powers DID help
the North reattack. They, of course, won. But **we** didn't "lose"
"we" being the left wingers in Congress like Humphrey, Kerry, and Kennedy
..
they won ... they got the result tey wanted: the north took over the
South, and the dominoes fell in the rest of Southeast Asia,
millions of innocents being murdered by Communists and their
friends. It was one of the shabbiest episodes in American history.
Those responsible, principally Kennedy, Humphrey and Kerry,
know in their hearts that they are among the people responsible
for one of the biggest mass murders of the 20th Century,
though well behind Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh himself.


Bluntly, it was one of the Left Wing of the USA's finest hours ...
they got the evil they so love to hate and love at the same time.

Doug McDonald

Hey! You are preaching to the choir......I never said that we, "Lost the
Vietnamese war" You've got me mixed up with somebody else......

"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote:
"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message

Actually no. Looking at the latest fuel mix (2008) for my residential
power company:
[...]
That means that for me only 10% would come from fossil fuel. As wind,
solar, and other technologies are becoming more widespread this ratio
will shift further away from fossil fuel.

This may be true for you, but here in the US, around 55 to 60 % of our
electricity comes from burning coal.

Sorry, I am living near Everett, WA, USA. The fuel mix I quoted is for
the Snohomish County PUD:
http://www.snopud.com/energy/pwrsour...p=1878#fuelmix

This is also improving with time,
but we still have a long way to go, and we use more electricity than any
other country on Earth, so global warming due to CO2 emissions is a big
problem, in spite of your country's excellent record.

Let's just say there are regions which are somewhat progressive and then
there are regions which are somewhat more backwards.


Let's just say that there are regions that have lots of hydro-electric power
sources and there are regions that don't. The Northwest is not typical of
the whole country.....


It's high time we
started to use nuclear power to generate our electricity.

This on the other hand had been recognized as a particularly bad idea a
few decades ago, if not on 28 March 1979 then at the very least on 26
April 1986.

Well, we can do three possible things: 1: We can die of global warming. 2:
We can go back to being cave men and use no power at all, 3: We can develop
and use nuclear power. So, which one do you want?

"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message 4a6ffc56$0$9720$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au, DRS writes
"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
m
"Bill Graham" wrote:

[...]

It's high time we
started to use nuclear power to generate our electricity.

This on the other hand had been recognized as a particularly bad idea
a few decades ago, if not on 28 March 1979 then at the very least on
26 April 1986.

Two accidents due in large part to poor design is not an argument against
nuclear per se. Any fair dinkum analysis of the non-carbon emitting power
sources inevitably bring nuclear into the equation. Just ask the Germans
and the Danes where they get their electricity when the sun doesn't shine
and the wind doesn't blow.
And the French.....

The trouble is that whilst the US is good at making Nuclear weapons it
is not very good at making nuclear power stations. 3 mile island could
very easily have been a Chernobyl.


Even if Chris is right, (which he isn't) we can always buy our nuclear power
stations from the French.....After all, they would love to sell them to us,
since they sold them to Saddam.......

"DRS" wrote in message
...
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message

DRS wrote:
"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
"Bill Graham" wrote:

It's high time we
started to use nuclear power to generate our electricity.

This on the other hand had been recognized as a particularly bad
idea a few decades ago, if not on 28 March 1979 then at the very
least on 26 April 1986.

Two accidents due in large part to poor design is not an argument
against nuclear per se.

A better argument is the fact that, as yet, there is no way to dispose
of nuclear waste.

Waste reprocessing. The "hottest" nuclear waste can now be brought down
to the level of the original uranium ore within hundreds of years by
"burning" it in a nuclear reactor along with the other fuel. The volume of
waste (and fuel) is more than a million times less that of coal for the
same amount of electricity produced. A thousand-tonne train load of coal
is replaced by one kg of uranium(235). Not one tonne; one KILOGRAM."


It's a lot easier to get rid of the nuclear waste than it is to get rid of
all the CO2 that would be generated by getting the same amount of
electricity from burning coal......Nuclear waste is solid.....CO2 is a gas.