A suitable end to Thanksgiving weekend

On 12/05/2013 04:07 PM, pigo wrote:

On Thursday, December 5, 2013 10:23:16 AM UTC-7, The Real Bev wrote:

Spectator sports are bunk. If you wore a colostomy bag I think I can
see how you might be fascinated watching people **** just like you could
back when you were young, but STILL...

Says the person that lives in So. Cal. that doesn't have to hunker down in the winter.

What do you mean? We just broke out the electric blankets tonight, an
excellent substitute for the heater that hasn't been turned on in decades.

And Snow Summit is set to open tomorrow. I was thinking of going just
to go on opening day, but I think it's more sensible to wait until next
week. Maybe a few more runs open and no first-day fanatics.

A question: Grandspawn (novice) and his cousin (never-ever) in Dallas
want to ski/board. Which is better for newbies, Taos or Santa Fe?

--
Cheers, Bev
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Lottery: the closest thing we have to
a tax on stupidity.

On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 23:15:17 -0800, The Real Bev
wrote this crap:

A question: Grandspawn (novice) and his cousin (never-ever) in Dallas
want to ski/board. Which is better for newbies, Taos or Santa Fe?

I recommend the fast lane of I-5.



Merry Christmas everyone. God bless us all.
God bless America.

On Friday, December 6, 2013 1:15:17 AM UTC-6, The Real Bev wrote:


A question: Grandspawn (novice) and his cousin (never-ever) in Dallas
want to ski/board. Which is better for newbies, Taos or Santa Fe?


Well, we know what happens to people who learn to navigate snow at Taos. It's not pretty.

Angel Fire or Red River, perhaps? Santa Fe's better (flatter and wider) and more board-friendly than Taos, but both SF and Taos are relatively high elevation, which is an anathema to flatlanders unless they're already in pretty good physical condition.

I'd suggest considering a low-elevation Colorado resort instead.

On Thursday, December 5, 2013 10:15:59 PM UTC-5, Dave Stallard wrote:

And Lynnette "Squeaky" Fromme tried to assassinate Gerry Ford in '75. And Harry Truman had TWO assassination attempts.

Actually, Jerry Ford had two attempts as well: Sara Jane Moore right after Squeaky.

The year before, a guy who tried to hijack a plane on the ground in order to fly it into the White House to kill President Nixon. And still Condi Rice said at the 9/11 hearings "I don't think anyone even anticipated that people would fly airplanes into buildings". BULL****! Typical GWB administration behavior, always letting themselves off the hook. Take some responsibility!

In all, SEVENTEEN Presidents have either been assassinated, or been the subject of assassination attempts or plots. See list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ation_attempts

On Thursday, December 5, 2013 7:20:26 PM UTC-7, Dave Stallard wrote:

Well Bob, given that almost 1 in 9 (5 out of 44) Presidents of the United States have actually BEEN SHOT, 4 of them fatally, I'd suggest that "bho" does actually need a large number of bodyguards. In fact, if you take into account the short career of the Presidency - a maximum of 8 years, with the average being less - POTUS is a shortlist candidate for the most dangerous job you can have. By the numbers, it's way more dangerous than being a cop, for instance. No way are 1 out of 9 cops shot in the line of duty, even over much longer careers. Nor are soldiers, even in wartime.

Go ahead and leave out the huge target that they are from everything from political adversaries to your basic nutbar. And I do not think that a president should not be protected. I think that to surround yourself with guns while pretending that they are such a danger that the constitution should be ignored, while not unexpected from this lying POS, is the height of hypocrisy.

Just curious. Why bracket "bho"? Those are his initials. Did you bracket GW?

On Fri, 6 Dec 2013 06:15:53 -0800 (PST), Dave Stallard
wrote this crap:


In all, SEVENTEEN Presidents have either been assassinated,
or been the subject of assassination attempts or plots. See list:

Those are the ones we know about.



Merry Christmas everyone. God bless us all.
God bless America.

On Friday, December 6, 2013 8:06:16 AM UTC-7, comadrejo wrote:

Most Health Insurance doesn't have riders stating hospitals have to
have the insureree's blood type at the local hospitals.

Nor do they require birth control or maternity coverage for old men. If I wanted to have my blood type at a hospital when I travelled I'm sure I could pay to have it. I'm going to guess that they probably already do. His too. Unless Kenyan blood is different? :-)

Ditto that the POTUS doesn't travel on Southwest Airlines. You can also ask him to
get his own housing as well while he is living in DC.

Nor is there a law, forced down peoples throats, unilaterally edited since passing to eliminate the compromises made during negotiations by the parties actually assigned to make law, for everyone to fly Southwest Airlines. For some of us to pay for first class travel but still ride coach so that others can ride for free.

He might as well just stay in Hawaii. He really just is on permanent campaign mode. A leader would be leading at something. Why not push for a budget? The senate hasn't had one in what? 5 years? Or how about that "red line"? Bengazi? I'd like to know about that. Is that film guy still in jail. The one whose video had nothing to do with it? Yeah, you're right, what's the point. We know that he's willing to lie through his teeth, straight to your face, over and over and over again even when he knows the opposite is true..

On Friday, December 6, 2013 8:12:14 AM UTC-7, Richard Henry wrote:

So point out the Rush like part? And explain what's wrong with it.

It's just how it is. It doesn't really matter where it comes from does it? I went to your link and added some context from the same article. The part you quoted was misleading at a minimum to the gist of the article.