Trek 4 the Troops

B. Lafferty wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Rich,

I think you're over-thinking this. I don't presume to represent all
cyclists, nor do I think that anyone will assume such after seeing me
riding along by myself. Perhaps if I organized large group rides in
major cities all across the country, involving many thousands of
cyclists, folks might think we as group are "pro-war".

I'm tying my desire to raise awareness for what I think is a worthy
cause to my riding a bike, well... 1) I like riding a bike and have
thought of riding cross-country on a fixed gear for a while, and 2)
it's not like I can just call up a bunch of TV stations and talk them
into running a story about a guy on his couch who thinks his story
deserves to be told. Hell, the very reason I'm doing the ride on a
fixed-gear is to differentiate the ride as something worthy of at least
a little interest/curiosity. Lot's of folks have ridden in support of
various causes, and the only way to generate interest is to be a bit
different.

I respect your opinions, and your right to have/express them. I'm not
trying to convince anyone to believe you share mine, or to make you
complicit in the war effort. I strongly believe, as do many of my
liberal friends, that it's entirely possible to support the troops
while not supporting the war.

The reason I posted any information here at all is because I thought a
bunch of fellow cyclists MIGHT be interested in the notion of the
fixed-gear continental crossing.

Many of us are interested in that aspect of a trans-america ride.


Apparently there are plenty of folks
who are so caught up in their hatred for all things 'Bush' they
completely missed that.

Hate Bush? No. I think he's a terribly manipulated moron, but it's the
policies promulgated by the Republican leadership that are disgusting. That
includes Iraq policy, pre-emptinve war and contempt for internationl
structures that might lead to peaceful international dispute resolution as
well as much of their domestic policy. I doubt you would have gotten the
response you have if you had announced that you were riding to fundraise for
the USO.



That's the thing, though, Brian. I AM riding for the USO (among many
other similar organizations). If you haven't yet, check out the
website. You'll see that I'm clearly not riding in support of Bush,
his policies, his administration, or to show support for the war
itself. I think you'd be surprised to find that we perhaps agree quite
a bit on the issues surrounding the war itself.

Scott

B. Lafferty wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Rich,

I think you're over-thinking this. I don't presume to represent all
cyclists, nor do I think that anyone will assume such after seeing me
riding along by myself. Perhaps if I organized large group rides in
major cities all across the country, involving many thousands of
cyclists, folks might think we as group are "pro-war".

I'm tying my desire to raise awareness for what I think is a worthy
cause to my riding a bike, well... 1) I like riding a bike and have
thought of riding cross-country on a fixed gear for a while, and 2)
it's not like I can just call up a bunch of TV stations and talk them
into running a story about a guy on his couch who thinks his story
deserves to be told. Hell, the very reason I'm doing the ride on a
fixed-gear is to differentiate the ride as something worthy of at least
a little interest/curiosity. Lot's of folks have ridden in support of
various causes, and the only way to generate interest is to be a bit
different.

I respect your opinions, and your right to have/express them. I'm not
trying to convince anyone to believe you share mine, or to make you
complicit in the war effort. I strongly believe, as do many of my
liberal friends, that it's entirely possible to support the troops
while not supporting the war.

The reason I posted any information here at all is because I thought a
bunch of fellow cyclists MIGHT be interested in the notion of the
fixed-gear continental crossing.

Many of us are interested in that aspect of a trans-america ride.


Apparently there are plenty of folks
who are so caught up in their hatred for all things 'Bush' they
completely missed that.

Hate Bush? No. I think he's a terribly manipulated moron, but it's the
policies promulgated by the Republican leadership that are disgusting. That
includes Iraq policy, pre-emptinve war and contempt for internationl
structures that might lead to peaceful international dispute resolution as
well as much of their domestic policy. I doubt you would have gotten the
response you have if you had announced that you were riding to fundraise for
the USO.

I talked to a friend on this last night, and even though we are 58 and
60, we thought it might be interesting to attempt to enlist and request
a tour of duty in Iraq, as long as Bush led us 'persoanlly'. It would be
worth the chance at getting shot to see the 'Commander in Chief' wet
himself. The concept of him being a terribly manipulated moron does hold
water, but I actually don't want anything bad to happen to him other
than losing power in both the house and senate. Considering that Cheney
is next in line, it could be worse. If I remember my politics correctly,
the speaker of the house is next in line, and assuming I'm not mentally
hallucinating from lack of sleep, isn't that Hastert, the child pervert
supporter?
I am going to vote with a big smile this year.


--
Bill (Sleepless biker) Baka

On 26 Oct 2006 03:52:56 -0700, "defrag"
wrote:


wrote:

To the best of my knowledge only a
select few have ever traversed the continent on a fixed-gear, and some
might say that the attempt is crazy.

Thousands of people traversed your country on a fixed gear to raise
fund to fight Histiocytosis.

http://www.fixhistio.org/

Thanks for the link. I had no idea about the disease or the ride.

"bill" wrote in message
t...
B. Lafferty wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Rich,

I think you're over-thinking this. I don't presume to represent all
cyclists, nor do I think that anyone will assume such after seeing me
riding along by myself. Perhaps if I organized large group rides in
major cities all across the country, involving many thousands of
cyclists, folks might think we as group are "pro-war".

I'm tying my desire to raise awareness for what I think is a worthy
cause to my riding a bike, well... 1) I like riding a bike and have
thought of riding cross-country on a fixed gear for a while, and 2)
it's not like I can just call up a bunch of TV stations and talk them
into running a story about a guy on his couch who thinks his story
deserves to be told. Hell, the very reason I'm doing the ride on a
fixed-gear is to differentiate the ride as something worthy of at least
a little interest/curiosity. Lot's of folks have ridden in support of
various causes, and the only way to generate interest is to be a bit
different.

I respect your opinions, and your right to have/express them. I'm not
trying to convince anyone to believe you share mine, or to make you
complicit in the war effort. I strongly believe, as do many of my
liberal friends, that it's entirely possible to support the troops
while not supporting the war.

The reason I posted any information here at all is because I thought a
bunch of fellow cyclists MIGHT be interested in the notion of the
fixed-gear continental crossing.

Many of us are interested in that aspect of a trans-america ride.


Apparently there are plenty of folks
who are so caught up in their hatred for all things 'Bush' they
completely missed that.

Hate Bush? No. I think he's a terribly manipulated moron, but it's the
policies promulgated by the Republican leadership that are disgusting.
That includes Iraq policy, pre-emptinve war and contempt for internationl
structures that might lead to peaceful international dispute resolution
as well as much of their domestic policy. I doubt you would have gotten
the response you have if you had announced that you were riding to
fundraise for the USO.

I talked to a friend on this last night, and even though we are 58 and 60,
we thought it might be interesting to attempt to enlist and request a tour
of duty in Iraq, as long as Bush led us 'persoanlly'. It would be worth
the chance at getting shot to see the 'Commander in Chief' wet himself.
The concept of him being a terribly manipulated moron does hold water, but
I actually don't want anything bad to happen to him other than losing
power in both the house and senate. Considering that Cheney is next in
line, it could be worse. If I remember my politics correctly, the speaker
of the house is next in line, and assuming I'm not mentally hallucinating
from lack of sleep, isn't that Hastert, the child pervert supporter?
I am going to vote with a big smile this year.


--
Bill (Sleepless biker) Baka

I'll be happy to serve with you.

B. Lafferty wrote:
"bill" wrote in message
t...
I talked to a friend on this last night, and even though we are 58 and 60,
we thought it might be interesting to attempt to enlist and request a tour
of duty in Iraq, as long as Bush led us 'persoanlly'. It would be worth
the chance at getting shot to see the 'Commander in Chief' wet himself.
The concept of him being a terribly manipulated moron does hold water, but
I actually don't want anything bad to happen to him other than losing
power in both the house and senate. Considering that Cheney is next in
line, it could be worse. If I remember my politics correctly, the speaker
of the house is next in line, and assuming I'm not mentally hallucinating
from lack of sleep, isn't that Hastert, the child pervert supporter?
I am going to vote with a big smile this year.


--
Bill (Sleepless biker) Baka

I'll be happy to serve with you.


It would be worth it to see Bush's reaction to a bullet flying over
'HIS' head and not just doing the daily body count of young kids who
'gave their life' *DEFENDING* their country.
My proposition would be to just claim the oilfields as spoils of war and
let the rest of the country handle their own holy civil war.
The 51st state, Iraqi oil fields.


--
Bill (Sleepless biker) Baka

B. Lafferty wrote:
And then there's that budget deficit every year under Bush.

*We* can invoke the Chung-Wiener Postulate by saying "*We* owe it to
*ourselves*." LOL.

The government can monetize the debt anytime. (With cough some
consequences.) Bush didn't create that power -- hoping a particular
administration won't use power created before them is wishful thinking.
Use the Acton Postulate: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely. If the power is granted it will be used -- that's human
nature. We don't have a limited government of enumerated powers,
although that was exactly what was promised to a bunch of suckers back
around 1789(?).

...vote Democrat in November.

Whatever. That will only change how you feel inside. Frankenstein
won't play nice just cuz a demopublican got elected, no matter what
their intentions. The monster you created to do good will consume you
(*and* your kids). If you want to do summum bonum, go into tax law and
figure out how to starve this awful beast.

wrote:
..
The reason I posted any information here at all is because I thought a
bunch of fellow cyclists MIGHT be interested in the notion of the
fixed-gear continental crossing. Apparently there are plenty of folks
who are so caught up in their hatred for all things 'Bush' they
completely missed that.

Hmmm. I think that the best possible way to show support for our military
is not to toy with their lives. They volunteer to stand in harm's way and
we should honor them by not sending them there unless the need is great --
and to return them home if it becomes clear the reason they were sent was
wrong. If you think that's "hatred of all things Bush" then it seems to me
your reason wasn't really nonpartisan at all.

"Robert Chung" wrote in message
...
wrote:
.
The reason I posted any information here at all is because I thought a
bunch of fellow cyclists MIGHT be interested in the notion of the
fixed-gear continental crossing. Apparently there are plenty of folks
who are so caught up in their hatred for all things 'Bush' they
completely missed that.

Hmmm. I think that the best possible way to show support for our military
is not to toy with their lives. They volunteer to stand in harm's way and
we should honor them by not sending them there unless the need is great --
and to return them home if it becomes clear the reason they were sent was
wrong. If you think that's "hatred of all things Bush" then it seems to me
your reason wasn't really nonpartisan at all.


Excellent statement!

bill wrote:
The 51st state, Iraqi oil fields.

Presumably the name of this new state would be Haliburton.

In article ,
Donald Munro wrote:

bill wrote:
The 51st state, Iraqi oil fields.

Presumably the name of this new state would be Haliburton.

Cheneystan.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?