Da Mook has Landed!

[vsmith]

Theres a HOOTERS in Old Town Pasadena and I can tell you people do not go there for the food. They go either because they think that they look cool eating there or they are ogling over the gal's that work there. Sorry but to me its just trendy, if I want good hot wing's there are plenty of good places to go.

As for Edi in California, I would be against it simply because it reinforces the wrong headed notions that are behind the recall.

Do the KFC's I mean PFK's in Canada serve their Extra Crispy Fried Poulet with a white wine sauce and little potatoes with a sprig of asparegus for accent? Sorry but the image of some good'ole southern cooking given a french twist has warped my already bent mind.

[Anonymous]

ED should be running for Governor of Cali.. he'd even beat Arnie and Mary Kerry (?) is that her name or Kerry Merry.. you know the partial time porn star..

Ed you'd beat both of them combined...

Ed, i like your reasons for not going too hooters.. you know that never crossed my mind. ALthough you are missing out on good chicken wings..

besides we don't have hooters in Quebec. it's a hard name to translate in french... somethign like.. HIBOUS.. that means OWLS.. So there actually is no translation for hooters, and no french name means your not allowed to own a Restaurant in Quebec.. even KFC is called "Poulet Frites Kentucky" i.e PFK..

so the closest one is in the Carousel mall, located in Syracuse, NY .

Is Ed implying his wife is a "Barn burner?" if you get my drift...[;)]

[Anonymous]

ED should be running for Governor of Cali.. he'd even beat Arnie and Mary Kerry (?) is that her name or Kerry Merry.. you know the partial time porn star..

Ed you'd beat both of them combined...

Ed, i like your reasons for not going too hooters.. you know that never crossed my mind. ALthough you are missing out on good chicken wings..

besides we don't have hooters in Quebec. it's a hard name to translate in french... somethign like.. HIBOUS.. that means OWLS.. So there actually is no translation for hooters, and no french name means your not allowed to own a Restaurant in Quebec.. even KFC is called "Poulet Frites Kentucky" i.e PFK..

so the closest one is in the Carousel mall, located in Syracuse, NY .

Is Ed implying his wife is a "Barn burner?" if you get my drift...[;)]

[vsmith]

Sorry Zardoz, I think we're all just venting a little. With a lot going on in the world and sometimes I guess we just got to let it out...you know, any soapbox will do. But I still stand by my previous comment,

Ed for President !!!

[vsmith]

Sorry Zardoz, I think we're all just venting a little. With a lot going on in the world and sometimes I guess we just got to let it out...you know, any soapbox will do. But I still stand by my previous comment,

Ed for President !!!

[zardoz]

What does all of this have to do with railroading? If y'all want to discuss politics, start a thread for that purpose, or take it to a political forum. In here it's just boring.

[zardoz]

What does all of this have to do with railroading? If y'all want to discuss politics, start a thread for that purpose, or take it to a political forum. In here it's just boring.

[edblysard]

Hi Smith,
Wasnt endorsing Arnold, just pointing out he presents the appearence of being a leader, wether a good one or not is something that will only show up later down the line.

And yes, rape is the word for Enron's top managements actions out there, and here at home.
And the really scary thing is they did it right out in the open for so long!
One of their own VPs blew the whistle, and no one listened.
I keep saying, if they had hired railroad accountants, no one would have ever know!

Was Ronald Regan a good president?
Depends on your definition of good, and most people will have a slightly different definition of the word.
But he did present a strong face and facade of being a able and honest leader, which may be all thats really needed to hold the office now.
Look at Nixon.
If the man didnt shave three times a day, he looked like a thug!
And his handlers did a good job of keeping his face out of the papers for that very reason.
But he was a very effective leader in that he got things done.
His major screw up was he got caught, where the other presidents didnt.
He was followed by a klutz and a what most took to be a naive peanut farmer, both of who presented little to inspire the American public's faith in the leadership of the president.

And then out of the west rides Ronnie, who we all knew from the movies and TV, and his governership of California.
He looked, talked and walked exactly like a person who knew what to do and how he was going to fix what was wrong with America!

As soon as he takes office, Iran released the hostages!

What is lost in all of the hoopla is that Carter, not Regan, negotiated their release, but the Iran leaders waited on purpose to release them until Carter left office, so he couldnt claim the glory.

What I am geting at is that the important details of what a real leader accomplishes are often lost in the public image they project, or fail to project.

Ronald Regan is considered a successful president because he happened to be the public face of a very savy, very well run political and economic machine.

He was smart enough to hire the best he could, and even smarter to listen to them!
When he spoke, he appeared sincere, and sounded like he meant every single word he said, and would and could back it up with action!

Kennedy was just a smart.

He hired MacNamara away from Ford, and filled his cabinet with the brightest and most sucessful people he could find.

When he spoke in public, you belived everything he said, and he inspired you to do better, and to be proud of being an American.

Had he lived, I belive the American people would have elected him again and again, then followed suit with his brothers, and anyone else his political machine offered to them.

Not because they were such great leaders, but because they appeared to be!

Jessie Ventura got elected, even though he wasnt and isnt qualified to hold any job beyond that of court jester, based soley on the fact he said exactly what the voters wanted to hear, and looked like he could make it happen.

Of course he cant, and hasnt, but ask his constituents, and most of them will tell you they would vote for him again.

Before the advent of the instant worldwide media coverage we enjoy now, how a leader looked didnt make much of a difference in how the world, and the American people viewd him.
FDR is considered one of the strongest of America's leaders, and his sucessor VP Truman is viewed in somewhat the same light.
Had their appearence played as important a role as it does now, they both may never have held the office at all.
FRD suffered with polio, could walk very little if any at the end, was never photographed where his leg braces would show, all with the coperation of the national press corp.
Had the American people seen anything else but the staged shots, or the carefully chorographed public appearences he made, most would have lost confidence in his ability to lead us during the war.
Same with Truman.
He was so small it looked like a good breeze would blow him away!
And for a habadasher, he dressed horribly.
But he had and used the power to drop two atomic weapons on humans, and had the gumption and ability to publicly stand up and take the rap for it, all because his image was that of a determined leader, a facade not in the least impaired by how he looked, because most Americans saw only professionaly done photos of him.

But now days, your public appearence counts for at least as much as your professional qualifications, if not more.

If your are preceived as, and presented as a leader, most people will belive you are one, regardless if you could lead your way out of a paper bag!

If you took them on how they appeared, most of history's famous and accomplished statesmen couldnt hold their old jobs.
Thomas Jefferson had a horse face, Abe Lincoln was flat out ugly, no matter which way you looked at him.
Ben Franklin looked like something out of the Hobbit.
Only U S Grant, Teddy Rosevelt, JFK and Ronald Regan really looked the part, and Teddy looked like he flat out wanted to eat you alive!

I think Arnold is going to win, for no other reason than he looks like he can lead.

I think President Bush looks like a leader, but he blew it with this war, not because what we did in Iraq is wrong, Saddam was and is evil, and should have been overthrown the first time, but because the why he used to go to war was wrong.
I dont think he can sell it to the public too much longer.

But he has the look and the persona, and if no better looking canidate comes along, we most likly will re-elect him.

Only if someone who gives a better appearence of being able to lead shows up will we make a change.

If we are lucky, who ever it is will not only look the part, but have the same inner strength that Truman, FDR, and Teddy possesed, along with the skill to sell it like Regan and JFK did.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[edblysard]

Hi Smith,
Wasnt endorsing Arnold, just pointing out he presents the appearence of being a leader, wether a good one or not is something that will only show up later down the line.

And yes, rape is the word for Enron's top managements actions out there, and here at home.
And the really scary thing is they did it right out in the open for so long!
One of their own VPs blew the whistle, and no one listened.
I keep saying, if they had hired railroad accountants, no one would have ever know!

Was Ronald Regan a good president?
Depends on your definition of good, and most people will have a slightly different definition of the word.
But he did present a strong face and facade of being a able and honest leader, which may be all thats really needed to hold the office now.
Look at Nixon.
If the man didnt shave three times a day, he looked like a thug!
And his handlers did a good job of keeping his face out of the papers for that very reason.
But he was a very effective leader in that he got things done.
His major screw up was he got caught, where the other presidents didnt.
He was followed by a klutz and a what most took to be a naive peanut farmer, both of who presented little to inspire the American public's faith in the leadership of the president.

And then out of the west rides Ronnie, who we all knew from the movies and TV, and his governership of California.
He looked, talked and walked exactly like a person who knew what to do and how he was going to fix what was wrong with America!

As soon as he takes office, Iran released the hostages!

What is lost in all of the hoopla is that Carter, not Regan, negotiated their release, but the Iran leaders waited on purpose to release them until Carter left office, so he couldnt claim the glory.

What I am geting at is that the important details of what a real leader accomplishes are often lost in the public image they project, or fail to project.

Ronald Regan is considered a successful president because he happened to be the public face of a very savy, very well run political and economic machine.

He was smart enough to hire the best he could, and even smarter to listen to them!
When he spoke, he appeared sincere, and sounded like he meant every single word he said, and would and could back it up with action!

Kennedy was just a smart.

He hired MacNamara away from Ford, and filled his cabinet with the brightest and most sucessful people he could find.

When he spoke in public, you belived everything he said, and he inspired you to do better, and to be proud of being an American.

Had he lived, I belive the American people would have elected him again and again, then followed suit with his brothers, and anyone else his political machine offered to them.

Not because they were such great leaders, but because they appeared to be!

Jessie Ventura got elected, even though he wasnt and isnt qualified to hold any job beyond that of court jester, based soley on the fact he said exactly what the voters wanted to hear, and looked like he could make it happen.

Of course he cant, and hasnt, but ask his constituents, and most of them will tell you they would vote for him again.

Before the advent of the instant worldwide media coverage we enjoy now, how a leader looked didnt make much of a difference in how the world, and the American people viewd him.
FDR is considered one of the strongest of America's leaders, and his sucessor VP Truman is viewed in somewhat the same light.
Had their appearence played as important a role as it does now, they both may never have held the office at all.
FRD suffered with polio, could walk very little if any at the end, was never photographed where his leg braces would show, all with the coperation of the national press corp.
Had the American people seen anything else but the staged shots, or the carefully chorographed public appearences he made, most would have lost confidence in his ability to lead us during the war.
Same with Truman.
He was so small it looked like a good breeze would blow him away!
And for a habadasher, he dressed horribly.
But he had and used the power to drop two atomic weapons on humans, and had the gumption and ability to publicly stand up and take the rap for it, all because his image was that of a determined leader, a facade not in the least impaired by how he looked, because most Americans saw only professionaly done photos of him.

But now days, your public appearence counts for at least as much as your professional qualifications, if not more.

If your are preceived as, and presented as a leader, most people will belive you are one, regardless if you could lead your way out of a paper bag!

If you took them on how they appeared, most of history's famous and accomplished statesmen couldnt hold their old jobs.
Thomas Jefferson had a horse face, Abe Lincoln was flat out ugly, no matter which way you looked at him.
Ben Franklin looked like something out of the Hobbit.
Only U S Grant, Teddy Rosevelt, JFK and Ronald Regan really looked the part, and Teddy looked like he flat out wanted to eat you alive!

I think Arnold is going to win, for no other reason than he looks like he can lead.

I think President Bush looks like a leader, but he blew it with this war, not because what we did in Iraq is wrong, Saddam was and is evil, and should have been overthrown the first time, but because the why he used to go to war was wrong.
I dont think he can sell it to the public too much longer.

But he has the look and the persona, and if no better looking canidate comes along, we most likly will re-elect him.

Only if someone who gives a better appearence of being able to lead shows up will we make a change.

If we are lucky, who ever it is will not only look the part, but have the same inner strength that Truman, FDR, and Teddy possesed, along with the skill to sell it like Regan and JFK did.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard



Which is why Arnold may win out west,
if nothing more, he presents the image of a strong leader, which California seems to have been lacking for years.
Wether there is anything behind the beefcake, only time will tell.
But its funny, when Regan was governer, California was the place business went.

Unihead Ed for President!

I couldt agree more, out here in the west we are having to deal with this attempted hijacking of the democratic process and if its successfull start looking for it to happen all over the country. It will start a political war all over the country.
(Just look at Texas with the Dem's fleeing the state to prevent a very surly move at redistricting). You will ALL be affected sooner or later.

Grey davis is not popular out here but HE HASNT COMMITTED A CRIME!!!! That fact is irrelevent to the Republican Warlord who want to take over the state. The are back Ahhnoold the Inexperienced because they see there best chance to seeze control. What they want isnt a better Economy in California , no, what they want is a govener who will stump for BeeleBush in 2004.

Intellegent people out here know the STATE LEGISLATURE is the real cause of the economic mees here. davis is blamed for the energy crisis but it was PETE WILSON who pushed energy deregulation thru the legislature and it was SoCal Edison and PG&E that hadunprecidented input over the degregulation process. In other words they helped write the policies that bankrupted them and the legislature rubberstamped it. The deregulation bill went thru the legislature faster than any other bill that year, they didnt even look at it to see if it
was good for the state because the energy companies were stuffing there pockets with campaign contributions. This is all public record, but Davis gets the blame.

California goes from unprecidented surplus to unprecidented deficit/. During the dot.com balloon the legislature again instead of controlling speading based on prior years budgets, they started spending like this boom would last forever, and of course it never does. But they always feel that thier pet projects are entitled to funding forever so no spending cuts are ever agreed on. Well after Enron raped us (there is no better term) and robbed our coffers all while
BeezeBush and that $%#&@ Cheney did NOTHING to interveen. Of course we lost a lot of $$$, our benevolent president wanted to punish California for not voting for him. This is all forgotten in the wake of 9-11.

Now Davis is democraticly re-elected in a legitamite election but that is of no consiquence to the Rebulicans. Now they want to put Arnold in charge because they think they can control him like a puppet but the closer we get to recall day and the less Arlond has to say the more worried people are getting. Shwartzee hasnt said ANYTHING meaningfull are intellegent about what quailfies him to be governer. All I can say is if the people of this state are STUPID enough to put an inexperienced actor in charge of the worlds 8th largest economy ,
they deserve all they get. And before someone brings up Ronnie Raygun not having "experience" please remember, he was president of the Screen Actors Guild for meny years, so he was used to the politics and backstabbing infighting associated with that orginization,so for him it was same bs, different office.

Someone said once regerding Californias economy, "So goes California, so goes the nation."

Enough ranting but I feel NO ONE has really LOOKED at whats going on around this country and that frightens me.

Time to go run my trains and calm down now.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard



Which is why Arnold may win out west,
if nothing more, he presents the image of a strong leader, which California seems to have been lacking for years.
Wether there is anything behind the beefcake, only time will tell.
But its funny, when Regan was governer, California was the place business went.

Unihead Ed for President!

I couldt agree more, out here in the west we are having to deal with this attempted hijacking of the democratic process and if its successfull start looking for it to happen all over the country. It will start a political war all over the country.
(Just look at Texas with the Dem's fleeing the state to prevent a very surly move at redistricting). You will ALL be affected sooner or later.

Grey davis is not popular out here but HE HASNT COMMITTED A CRIME!!!! That fact is irrelevent to the Republican Warlord who want to take over the state. The are back Ahhnoold the Inexperienced because they see there best chance to seeze control. What they want isnt a better Economy in California , no, what they want is a govener who will stump for BeeleBush in 2004.

Intellegent people out here know the STATE LEGISLATURE is the real cause of the economic mees here. davis is blamed for the energy crisis but it was PETE WILSON who pushed energy deregulation thru the legislature and it was SoCal Edison and PG&E that hadunprecidented input over the degregulation process. In other words they helped write the policies that bankrupted them and the legislature rubberstamped it. The deregulation bill went thru the legislature faster than any other bill that year, they didnt even look at it to see if it
was good for the state because the energy companies were stuffing there pockets with campaign contributions. This is all public record, but Davis gets the blame.

California goes from unprecidented surplus to unprecidented deficit/. During the dot.com balloon the legislature again instead of controlling speading based on prior years budgets, they started spending like this boom would last forever, and of course it never does. But they always feel that thier pet projects are entitled to funding forever so no spending cuts are ever agreed on. Well after Enron raped us (there is no better term) and robbed our coffers all while
BeezeBush and that $%#&@ Cheney did NOTHING to interveen. Of course we lost a lot of $$$, our benevolent president wanted to punish California for not voting for him. This is all forgotten in the wake of 9-11.

Now Davis is democraticly re-elected in a legitamite election but that is of no consiquence to the Rebulicans. Now they want to put Arnold in charge because they think they can control him like a puppet but the closer we get to recall day and the less Arlond has to say the more worried people are getting. Shwartzee hasnt said ANYTHING meaningfull are intellegent about what quailfies him to be governer. All I can say is if the people of this state are STUPID enough to put an inexperienced actor in charge of the worlds 8th largest economy ,
they deserve all they get. And before someone brings up Ronnie Raygun not having "experience" please remember, he was president of the Screen Actors Guild for meny years, so he was used to the politics and backstabbing infighting associated with that orginization,so for him it was same bs, different office.

Someone said once regerding Californias economy, "So goes California, so goes the nation."

Enough ranting but I feel NO ONE has really LOOKED at whats going on around this country and that frightens me.

Time to go run my trains and calm down now.

[edblysard]

Its not a matter of not being able too, its a matter of...
well, look at it this way.
After running a pair of SD70Ms at track speed, hammering the rail, and then someone suggest you go "have some fun" running a SW9, its kinda letdown.

Why go to hooters and look at girls in shorts and tee shirts when my wife will cook me dinner, and serve it to me wearing anything out of the Fredricks of Hollywood store I pick out?

I kinda lucked out in that department, I married someone who's "appetite" is as voracious as my own![;)]
Sorry, her sisters are all prudes!
Staying Frosty,
Ed

[edblysard]

Its not a matter of not being able too, its a matter of...
well, look at it this way.
After running a pair of SD70Ms at track speed, hammering the rail, and then someone suggest you go "have some fun" running a SW9, its kinda letdown.

Why go to hooters and look at girls in shorts and tee shirts when my wife will cook me dinner, and serve it to me wearing anything out of the Fredricks of Hollywood store I pick out?

I kinda lucked out in that department, I married someone who's "appetite" is as voracious as my own![;)]
Sorry, her sisters are all prudes!
Staying Frosty,
Ed

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard


There is a reason some of us dont have to go to Hooters, or any other eatery where the eye candy is better than the food![;)]
Stay Frosty,
Ed

I dunno Ed, I don't go because I have to, I just go because I can!!

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard


There is a reason some of us dont have to go to Hooters, or any other eatery where the eye candy is better than the food![;)]
Stay Frosty,
Ed

I dunno Ed, I don't go because I have to, I just go because I can!!

LC

[adrianspeeder]

umm ok Ed

Adrianspeeder

[adrianspeeder]

umm ok Ed

Adrianspeeder

[edblysard]

Kev,
I think you have me confussed with some other person, I never said I didnt like Hooters, although any body part in my food is a little unpleasent.
On the other hand, a lot is to be said about what can be done with whipped cream and cherries and....

Well, if your lucky, one of the days you can meet my Aimee, and you can figure it out from there.[:D]

There is a reason some of us dont have to go to Hooters, or any other eatery where the eye candy is better than the food![;)]
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[edblysard]

Kev,
I think you have me confussed with some other person, I never said I didnt like Hooters, although any body part in my food is a little unpleasent.
On the other hand, a lot is to be said about what can be done with whipped cream and cherries and....

Well, if your lucky, one of the days you can meet my Aimee, and you can figure it out from there.[:D]

There is a reason some of us dont have to go to Hooters, or any other eatery where the eye candy is better than the food![;)]
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[Anonymous]

OH and Ed.. what body parts do they put in your food at HOOTERS that you object too??

I bet i know why you don't like it.. you don't want to get busted staring!
i can just see ed saying "Sorry, come closer so i can read your nametag!"

[Anonymous]

OH and Ed.. what body parts do they put in your food at HOOTERS that you object too??

I bet i know why you don't like it.. you don't want to get busted staring!
i can just see ed saying "Sorry, come closer so i can read your nametag!"

[Anonymous]

Hey i must give congradulations to bush, he's the only president to run up a 538 billion dollar deficit.. in less then 4 years..

that really is pretty impressive..
you'll never hear me say "thats pretty impressive" to a bad situation ever again, because i reserve that saying for good things, but you gotta admit.. 538 billion dollars is alot of money.. that beats my yearkly salery by a few bananas..

Imagine what 538 billion dollars could get you at the the dollar store.. ~ around 537, 999, 998, 684 different 1 dollar articles (number varies based on tax percentage)

Could 10% of 538 billion be spent on schools.. and other needy things? that are.. you know.. slightly more important?

i support the troops 1000%, i support bush -1000%

[Anonymous]

Hey i must give congradulations to bush, he's the only president to run up a 538 billion dollar deficit.. in less then 4 years..

that really is pretty impressive..
you'll never hear me say "thats pretty impressive" to a bad situation ever again, because i reserve that saying for good things, but you gotta admit.. 538 billion dollars is alot of money.. that beats my yearkly salery by a few bananas..

Imagine what 538 billion dollars could get you at the the dollar store.. ~ around 537, 999, 998, 684 different 1 dollar articles (number varies based on tax percentage)

Could 10% of 538 billion be spent on schools.. and other needy things? that are.. you know.. slightly more important?

i support the troops 1000%, i support bush -1000%

[edblysard]

Not real sure we elect the same people over and over, but instead, we elect the same type of people.
After Kennedy, I dont really see where the American people have elected a real leader, although Regan came very close.
We have allowed the media, and the politicans spin doctors to teach us that this is how we are supposed to elect our president by chosing the best out of a bad lot, instead of looking for someone to lead.

Which is why Arnold may win out west,
if nothing more, he presents the image of a strong leader, which California seems to have been lacking for years.
Wether there is anything behind the beefcake, only time will tell.
But its funny, when Regan was governer, California was the place business went.

When Kennedy said "the nations number one goal is to send a man to the moon, and return him to earth safely, before this decade is out", you belived him completly.
If GW came on TV, and said the nations number one goal was to send colonist to the moon, and establi***he first true lunar base, the first thing I would think is more NASA porkbarrel spending, and I would start looking for the funding ridders for his buddies pet projects.

When following a leader we belive in, Americans are capable of moving mountains.

Look at the lunar landing.
With technology that I wouldnt trust to turn on a toaster correctly, we went to another plant, landed, collected samples, and returned to our earth.

All because Kennedy said we could, and we should!
Did America benefit from that?
Sure, your typing on a product directly descended from the space race.
The cell phone you call granny on is another byproduct.

I bet those of you who were alive on July 20th, 1969, remember exactly where you were and what you were doing when Neil Armstong said "Houston, Tranquility base here, the Eagle has landed".

The words "One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind" were spoken from the moon by an America, expressing the sentiment of a nation that belived in itself totally as the leader of the free world.

Kennedy didnt promise any reward from this when he made the speech that culminated in Armstrong putting the first of thousands of American foot prints in the lunar soil.

Instead he made it clear that we, the American people, would go and do this, and many other great things, not because it was easy or profitable but exactly the opposite, because it was hard and dangerous, but that as Americans, we were responsible and willing to lead the way.

Stop and think about this, on later missions, we sent a dune buggy to the moon!
Can you think of any other country who could do that?

Find me any politician today that can inspire the nation to put a man back on the moon, not because we get laptops or cellphones out of the deal, but simply because, as the greatest nation on the planet, we want too, and we can!

Find me a leader like that, and I will vote for him, or her!
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[edblysard]

Not real sure we elect the same people over and over, but instead, we elect the same type of people.
After Kennedy, I dont really see where the American people have elected a real leader, although Regan came very close.
We have allowed the media, and the politicans spin doctors to teach us that this is how we are supposed to elect our president by chosing the best out of a bad lot, instead of looking for someone to lead.

Which is why Arnold may win out west,
if nothing more, he presents the image of a strong leader, which California seems to have been lacking for years.
Wether there is anything behind the beefcake, only time will tell.
But its funny, when Regan was governer, California was the place business went.

When Kennedy said "the nations number one goal is to send a man to the moon, and return him to earth safely, before this decade is out", you belived him completly.
If GW came on TV, and said the nations number one goal was to send colonist to the moon, and establi***he first true lunar base, the first thing I would think is more NASA porkbarrel spending, and I would start looking for the funding ridders for his buddies pet projects.

When following a leader we belive in, Americans are capable of moving mountains.

Look at the lunar landing.
With technology that I wouldnt trust to turn on a toaster correctly, we went to another plant, landed, collected samples, and returned to our earth.

All because Kennedy said we could, and we should!
Did America benefit from that?
Sure, your typing on a product directly descended from the space race.
The cell phone you call granny on is another byproduct.

I bet those of you who were alive on July 20th, 1969, remember exactly where you were and what you were doing when Neil Armstong said "Houston, Tranquility base here, the Eagle has landed".

The words "One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind" were spoken from the moon by an America, expressing the sentiment of a nation that belived in itself totally as the leader of the free world.

Kennedy didnt promise any reward from this when he made the speech that culminated in Armstrong putting the first of thousands of American foot prints in the lunar soil.

Instead he made it clear that we, the American people, would go and do this, and many other great things, not because it was easy or profitable but exactly the opposite, because it was hard and dangerous, but that as Americans, we were responsible and willing to lead the way.

Stop and think about this, on later missions, we sent a dune buggy to the moon!
Can you think of any other country who could do that?

Find me any politician today that can inspire the nation to put a man back on the moon, not because we get laptops or cellphones out of the deal, but simply because, as the greatest nation on the planet, we want too, and we can!

Find me a leader like that, and I will vote for him, or her!
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[Mookie]

I wasn't in favor of the war - didn't think we had investigated it enough. I think we were sold a bill of goods, in a rush. Our domestic situation wasn't all that good, so let's have a war and divert attention. We never have had solid proof there was something to go to war over. Still don't. Looks to me like we were on an ego trip at the expense of a lot of our young people!

But you know, I don't expect the citizens of the USA to make any changes in the next election. They rant about the conditions, but then go right back to the polls and re-elect the same people all over again. Or maybe they don't, but the hanging chads get them!

Disgusted Mookie

[Mookie]

I wasn't in favor of the war - didn't think we had investigated it enough. I think we were sold a bill of goods, in a rush. Our domestic situation wasn't all that good, so let's have a war and divert attention. We never have had solid proof there was something to go to war over. Still don't. Looks to me like we were on an ego trip at the expense of a lot of our young people!

But you know, I don't expect the citizens of the USA to make any changes in the next election. They rant about the conditions, but then go right back to the polls and re-elect the same people all over again. Or maybe they don't, but the hanging chads get them!

Disgusted Mookie

[JoeKoh]

congrats on your 4 th star.Like I said why give our money to some ungrateful backstabbing nation when we need the help here.
stay safe
joe

[JoeKoh]

congrats on your 4 th star.Like I said why give our money to some ungrateful backstabbing nation when we need the help here.
stay safe
joe

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Alaskaman

Congradulations on your fourth star Mookie![8D][8D]
Stay cool.

Thanx Alaska! You know - Da Mook is always cool! ( or is it chilled or frosty or...something like that!)

Mookie