More fuel for thought

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:37:40 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:

It actually surprised me that during this years primary there were three
ballots to choose from in Arkansas Republican, Democrat and Green. What
really shocked me was that there were as many Green presidential
hopefuls as there were Republicans.

As many Green candidates as there were Republicans, or
Republican *candidates*? :-)

Ron Wanttaja

On 2008-04-16, Jay Honeck wrote:
I think the real solution would be to go back to a part-time Congress, with
legislator's pay insufficient to support a family. This would force
CongressCritters to actually work for a living, and would be a great impetus
to get things done quickly and efficiently -- and to leave Washington after
their duty was done, rather than turning into Kennedy-esque quasi-permanent
fixtures in government.

I know, wake up, Honeck -- you're dreaming!

Yes, you are. This wouldn't force Congresscritters to work for a living, it
would just restrict the job (even more than it is now) to the independently
wealthy. We don't need more Kennedys, but fewer.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

Yes, you are. This wouldn't force Congresscritters to work for a living,
it
would just restrict the job (even more than it is now) to the
independently
wealthy. We don't need more Kennedys, but fewer.

Hmmm. Good point.

Maybe we need to make it like jury duty, or the military draft? Every so
often, you just get "called up" to serve in Congress?

Nah, Canada can't absorb that many more of us...

I don't know the solution to the special interests' influence in Washington.
Every potential solution has a potentially worse downside...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 2008-04-16, Jay Honeck wrote:
I don't know the solution to the special interests' influence in Washington.
Every potential solution has a potentially worse downside...

Wait a minute. Before you decry the special interests, remember: you're a
member of at least two special interest groups, general aviation and small
business...
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

Wait a minute. Before you decry the special interests, remember: you're a
member of at least two special interest groups, general aviation and small
business...

Yep. It's a conundrum. As I said, my "special interest group" is your
"worthy cause"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
Wait a minute. Before you decry the special interests, remember: you're a
member of at least two special interest groups, general aviation and
small
business...

Yep. It's a conundrum. As I said, my "special interest group" is your
"worthy cause"...

As I always say, if you are involved in any way at all with the
government, there is always the chance you will get royally f****d. It
does indeed pay to make sure they have an ample supply of "conundrums" :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

On Apr 16, 9:28*am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Phil J wrote:
On Apr 15, 2:47 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:

I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that we trash the world
economy.
There are lot's of Greens out there that would do exactly that and if
the truth were known they would be happy about it. These are the same
people that were pro-USSR prior to the 90s. They are watermelons. Green
on the outside and red on the inside. That is a friend of mine's
favorite saying. He probably got it from Rush but it is a pretty good
description.

Really? *How many Communist Greens have you met that wanted to trash
the world's economy?

Phil

Which ones don't?


Yeah, I never actually met any of them either, but I try not to get
confused by "reality". Rush says it so I know it's true. He also
says those evil Greens like to kill and eat babies. Isn't it great to
have Rush to tell us what to think??

Phil

Phil J wrote in
:

On Apr 16, 9:28*am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Phil J wrote:
On Apr 15, 2:47 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:

I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that we trash the world
economy.
There are lot's of Greens out there that would do exactly that and
if the truth were known they would be happy about it. These are
the same people that were pro-USSR prior to the 90s. They are
watermelons. Green

on the outside and red on the inside. That is a friend of mine's
favorite saying. He probably got it from Rush but it is a pretty
good description.

Really? *How many Communist Greens have you met that wanted to
trash the world's economy?

Phil

Which ones don't?


Yeah, I never actually met any of them either, but I try not to get
confused by "reality". Rush says it so I know it's true. He also
says those evil Greens like to kill and eat babies. Isn't it great to
have Rush to tell us what to think??

Phil




I thank God for him every day.


Bertie

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:37:40 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:

It actually surprised me that during this years primary there were three
ballots to choose from in Arkansas Republican, Democrat and Green. What
really shocked me was that there were as many Green presidential
hopefuls as there were Republicans.

As many Green candidates as there were Republicans, or
Republican *candidates*? :-)

Ron Wanttaja


Candidates, though in my particular ward either phrasing would have been
close.

Alan wrote:
In article Jim Logajan writes:
(Alan) wrote:
Now, if I had the cash, I would be inclined to see if that 3 horsepower
could be fed to a reasonably efficient prop to drive an ultralight
around. It might be difficult to stay ultralight with all the solar
power weight, but it would be fun if it could be made to work.

You are about 28 years too late - it was demonstrated in 1980. Here's a
brief history of solar powered flight:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/n...-054-DFRC.html

Yet none of these efforts were funded and built by individuals.
Research projects are nice, but many of those were extreme cases of
extra light aircraft.

I expect that you have never flown one. Neither have I. Many of
these were special case aircraft, similar to the ones for human powered
flight. They weren't exactly something that you haul out, hop in, and
fly off casually.

With increases in efficiency and dropping prices for solar cells, we
may one day be able to fly our own solar aircraft, instead of just
reading about better funded researchers doing it.

Never going to happen.

With 100% efficient solar cells, flying over Tucson in the middle
of summer, and the wings banked 35 degrees to get 100% of the available
energy, there isn't enough wing area on a C-172 to generate enough
power to maintain altitude.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.