What have been the worst home handyman accidents you've had,or seen so far ?

Page 10 of 16  
wrote:

Its not the Iranian people...its the fuctards that run their government.
Germans are nice folks. Stick a Shicklegrubber at the top...and all bets are off.
Unless the Iranians get the stones to remove the clerics and that evil cocksucking dwarf from power...they are going to wind up like the Germans did in 1945.
And you can take that to the bank.
Gunner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gunner wrote:

It looks like its getting closer to that day:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296642,00.html
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I\'ve got my DD214 to
prove it.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:
| || My _preferred_ weapons are keyboard and ballot. | | I so wish I had a ballot.
Y'know, I was thinking about that a while back. Not your (r's) ballot specifically, but the notion that citizens of a country aren't the only stakeholders in choosing that country's leaders.
It was just idle thinking, of course, because no one in any country would be willing to give someone from another country a role in choosing their country's leadership. Still, it's an interesting thought - and I've wondered how things would play if the world outside the USA could elect one senator and one representative to our legislature...
| That said, it does not render my views and my ability to express | them as impotent. | It's that 'forest-from-the-trees' thing, Morris.
Absolutely true - that's the "keyboard' part of the arsenal. Discourse /can/ bring about change when well-chosen words are spoken/written in a suitable context.
Well, in a manner of speaking, we're all trees in the forest - even though we'd each like to speak our own piece and be heard as individuals.
It's being worth listening to that's the real challenge.
| I peek over the fence and worry myself sick.
I'll be the first to admit that you have noisy neighbors who (at least sometimes) appear to be completely irrational. :-)
Observe - great. Worry yourself sick - please don't. As a constructive friend, you're highly valued - and I would prefer you stay healthy.
FWIW, before you get into deep worry mode, it makes sense to ask: "Hey, what's going on here? Do I need to worry about you?" There are a couple of benefits to this: first, there may not be as much reason to worry as you originally thought - and second, you've stimulated your neighbor to focus (even if just a little) more on what you see as a problem.
| A lot of my peers were on loan to Iran to build their electrical | networks. They made a lot of friends. So many Iranians we'd love to | have as neighbours. What's with the war drums?
Fear and a certain amount of bigotry. Fear that Iran will develop nuclear weapons as powerful as those we have and fear that they'll act irresponsibly.
I worked (and socialized) with some Irani immigrants in San Jose. I was pleased to give 'em all the furniture I'd built for my apartment when I returned to Iowa, and I'd be still more pleased to have them living next door here.
In order to beat the war drums, it's necessary to /ignore/ the value of individuals. I've concluded that "hawkishness" is inversely proportional to the number of places from which one's friends come and inverse-squared with one's appreciation for cultures other than one's own.
| Won't you add impeachement to you arsenal of keyboard and ballot?
That's not really a solution to the problems we've created for ourselves - for a number of reasons. For instance: How would you feel knowing the head of household next door had carelessly shot a _friend_?
IMO, our stars never shone so brightly as when we focused our efforts on sharing our best with others in need - and they never dimmed so rapidly as when our politicians changed their focus from 'help' to 'control'.
They _still_ don't have 24-hour electricity in Baghdad.
-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Morris Dovey wrote:

Probably about like they play in Puerto Rico and like they played in the Phillippines.

But only if the people with power to effect change see the words.

Getting heard is harder than being worth listening to.

Several of nations have nuclear weapons as powerful as those we have and are not a problem. I don't think that anyone in the US gives a damn if the Brits or the French have nuclear weapons of any degree of power. Iran though is run by Islamic fundamentalists, and while the ones running Iran have not done so recently, Islamic fundies seem to like to blow up anything they dislike and don't really seem to give much of a damn who, including themselves, gets hurt in the process. If it Iranians nuked a city somewhere and the whole country got paved as a result they'd be acclaimed as gloriout martyrs to the Jihad.
That's why Iran having nuclear weapons is a bad thing. In fact Pakistan having them is a bit scary--the current regime there seems to be reasonable, but it doesn't even have the whole country under control--there are places in Pakistan that the cops don't go without a military escort, and there have been attempts to assassinate the current leader. If the fundies take over Pakistan then it's quite possible that Very Bad Things will follow.

Every Japanese I've met has been a good guy. So has every German. That doesn't mean that Pearl Harbor and the Holocaust didn't happen.
It's not the man in the street that starts wars, it's the government. In the late '30s and early '40s both countries had rather nasty governments that didn't much care who got hurt while they pursued their dreams of power and there was precious little that the man in the street could do about it. A lot of good, decent Japanese and Germans got killed either by or for those governments.
Do you really trust the Iranian government? You don't seem to trust the US government and the US government is at least notionally answerable to the populace, so why is the Iranian government more trustworthy?

So which would you rather? Some of those valuable individuals die sooner while the Iranian government is prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons that it doesn't need, or a lot more die later when that government uses those weapons?
Why is the Iranian government so Hell-bent on nuclear weapons anyway? That money could be far better spent expanding the economy.

What does this have to do with impeachment? And how often does that particular scenario happen anyway? That's another statistic that you people pull up at the drop of the hat without understanding it--"shot someone you know" is not the same as "shot a friend".

And they aren't going to until the Iraqis quit blowing each other to Kingdom Come.
That's why the US is there right now, to try to keep the lid on until the government is strong and stable enough to do so without help. Now, I'm sure you're going to counter with the argument that everything will be peachy-keen in Iraq if the US leaves. And you're right, it will, if you define "peachy-keen" as "The Mahdi Army overthrows the government, establishes a Shiite dominated Islamic fundamentalist state, arrests and imprisons or executes anybody who dissents, lines up all the troublemakers and lots of other innocents who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and shoots them, establishes a new secret police, and Moqtada Al-Sadr is elected President for Life by a 110 percent majority".
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Saddam Hussein was sitting in his office wondering who to invade next when his telephone rang.
"Hallo! Mr. Hussein," a heavily accented voice said. "This is Paddy down in County Cavan, Ireland. I am ringing to inform you that we are officially declaring war on you."
"Well, Paddy," Saddam replied, "This is indeed important news. Tell me, how big is your army?"
"At this moment in time," said Paddy after a moment's calculation, "there is meself, my cousin Sean, my next door neighbour Gerry, and the entire dominoes team from the pub -- that makes eight."
Saddam sighed. "I must tell you Paddy that I have one million men in my army waiting to move on my command."
"Begorra!" said Paddy, "I'll have to ring you back."
Sure enough, the next day Paddy rang back. "Right Mr. Hussein, the war is still on. We have managed to acquire some equipment."
"And what equipment would that be, Paddy?" Saddam asked.
"Well, we have two combine harvesters, a bulldozer and Murphy's tractor from the farm."
Once more Saddam sighed. "I must tell you, Paddy, that I have 16,000 tanks, 14,000 armoured personnel carriers, and my army has increased to one and a half million since we last spoke."
"Really?" said Paddy. "I'll have to ring you back."
Paddy rang again the next day. "Right, Mr. Hussein, the war is still on. We have managed to get ourselves airborne. We've modified Ted's ultra-light with a couple of rifles in the cockpit, and the bridge team has joined us as well."
Saddam was silent for a minute, then sighed. "I must tell you Paddy that I have 10,000 bombers, 20,000 MiG-19 attack planes, my military complex is surrounded by laser-guided surface-to-air missile sites, and since we last spoke, my army has increased to two million men."
"Faith and begorra!" said Paddy. "I'll have to ring you back."
Sure enough, Paddy called again the next day. "Right, Mr. Hussein, I am sorry to tell you that we have had to call off the war."
"I'm sorry to hear that," said Saddam. "Why the sudden change of heart?"
"Well," said Paddy, "We've all had a chat, and there's no way we can feed two million prisoners."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote: | Morris Dovey wrote: || Robatoy wrote:
||| |||| My _preferred_ weapons are keyboard and ballot. ||| ||| I so wish I had a ballot. || || Y'know, I was thinking about that a while back. Not your (r's) || ballot || specifically, but the notion that citizens of a country aren't the || only stakeholders in choosing that country's leaders. || || It was just idle thinking, of course, because no one in any country || would be willing to give someone from another country a role in || choosing their country's leadership. Still, it's an interesting || thought - and I've wondered how things would play if the world || outside || the USA could elect one senator and one representative to our || legislature... | | Probably about like they play in Puerto Rico and like they played in | the Phillippines.
Quite possibly. Still, because of their far wider constituancy (assuming that the individuals /would/ actually attempt to represent their constituants), it'd be interesting to see if they could do other than vote "Nay" on all issues. :-)
||| That said, it does not render my views and my ability to express ||| them as impotent. ||| It's that 'forest-from-the-trees' thing, Morris. || || Absolutely true - that's the "keyboard' part of the arsenal. || Discourse || /can/ bring about change when well-chosen words are spoken/written || in || a suitable context. | | But only if the people with power to effect change see the words.
That's a given. Are you feeling ignored?
|| Well, in a manner of speaking, we're all trees in the forest - even || though we'd each like to speak our own piece and be heard as || individuals. || || It's being worth listening to that's the real challenge. | | Getting heard is harder than being worth listening to.
I haven't found that to be the case - but I may have some advantage because of my location. I've been going to campaign "town hall" meetings and have a different view.
||| A lot of my peers were on loan to Iran to build their electrical ||| networks. They made a lot of friends. So many Iranians we'd love ||| to have as neighbours. What's with the war drums? || || Fear and a certain amount of bigotry. Fear that Iran will develop || nuclear weapons as powerful as those we have and fear that they'll || act irresponsibly. | | Several of nations have nuclear weapons as powerful as those we have | and are not a problem. I don't think that anyone in the US gives a | damn if the Brits or the French have nuclear weapons of any degree | of power. Iran though is run by Islamic fundamentalists, and while | the ones running Iran have not done so recently, Islamic fundies | seem to like to blow up anything they dislike and don't really seem | to give much of a damn who, including themselves, gets hurt in the | process. If it Iranians nuked a city somewhere and the whole | country got paved as a result they'd be acclaimed as gloriout | martyrs to the Jihad.
Posession of nukes imposes (IMO) a requirement for non-stop 100.000% responsible behavior of which I see little evidence in any human society - YMMV.
_Radical_ fundamentalists of _any_ persuasion are so labeled, at least in part, because they deny cultural and social norms - and so their ability to act responsibly in a wider context is diminished.
A world in which we have jihad, crusade, purge, ethnic cleansing, etc. as operative concepts is not a good place in which to even store nukes.
| That's why Iran having nuclear weapons is a bad thing. In fact | Pakistan having them is a bit scary--the current regime there seems | to be reasonable, but it doesn't even have the whole country under | control--there are places in Pakistan that the cops don't go | without a military escort, and there have been attempts to | assassinate the current leader. If the fundies take over Pakistan | then it's quite possible that Very Bad Things will follow.
I agree. It's already /possible/ - but the probability would likely increase significantly.
|| I worked (and socialized) with some Irani immigrants in San Jose. I || was pleased to give 'em all the furniture I'd built for my || apartment when I returned to Iowa, and I'd be still more pleased || to have them living next door here. | | Every Japanese I've met has been a good guy. So has every German. | That doesn't mean that Pearl Harbor and the Holocaust didn't happen. | | It's not the man in the street that starts wars, it's the | government. In the late '30s and early '40s both countries had | rather nasty governments that didn't much care who got hurt while | they pursued their dreams of power and there was precious little | that the man in the street could do about it. A lot of good, | decent Japanese and Germans got killed either by or for those | governments. | | Do you really trust the Iranian government? You don't seem to trust | the US government and the US government is at least notionally | answerable to the populace, so why is the Iranian government more | trustworthy?
No, I don't - but neither do I have total confidence in /any/ government. I like to think that the US government - both as a whole and as a collection of elected/appointed/hired individuals - is more responsible, responsive, and answerable than most - but the news is filled with evidence of irresponsible and unwise behaviors. However good it is, it's not 100%.
|| In order to beat the war drums, it's necessary to /ignore/ the || value of individuals. I've concluded that "hawkishness" is || inversely proportional to the number of places from which one's || friends come and || inverse-squared with one's appreciation for cultures other than || one's own. | | So which would you rather? Some of those valuable individuals die | sooner while the Iranian government is prevented from obtaining | nuclear weapons that it doesn't need, or a lot more die later when | that government uses those weapons?
I'd rather you extended my range of choices. :-)
| Why is the Iranian government so Hell-bent on nuclear weapons | anyway? That money could be far better spent expanding the economy.
I don't /know/ why - but I'd guess that they're afraid and have convinced themselves that they can live less in fear if they can wave a bigger stick. I'd also guess that the primary sources of their fear are the USA and Israel.
I agree that the resources could be used much more productively.
||| Won't you add impeachement to you arsenal of keyboard and ballot? || || That's not really a solution to the problems we've created for || ourselves - for a number of reasons. For instance: How would you || feel || knowing the head of household next door had carelessly shot a || _friend_? | | What does this have to do with impeachment? And how often does that | particular scenario happen anyway? That's another statistic that | you people pull up at the drop of the hat without understanding | it--"shot someone you know" is not the same as "shot a friend".
Relatively seldom. I am not, by the way, "you people" any more than is John Clarke. It was not a group of people who wrote the article to which you responded. I'm making an effort to respond thoughtfully and honestly to you as an individual - and I'd appreciate if you make that same effort.
I maintain that a hunter is responsible for where his bullet/shot ends up - absolutely and without exception. If the trajectory cannot be known to be safe, the shot must not be fired. In my considered opinion Cheney demonstrated his inclination to act irresponsibly at a very fundamental level.
I not only would not hunt with the man - I would be loathe to allow him to trade control of his shotgun for control of our nuclear arsenal.
|| IMO, our stars never shone so brightly as when we focused our || efforts || on sharing our best with others in need - and they never dimmed so || rapidly as when our politicians changed their focus from 'help' to || 'control'. || || They _still_ don't have 24-hour electricity in Baghdad. | | And they aren't going to until the Iraqis quit blowing each other to | Kingdom Come. | | That's why the US is there right now, to try to keep the lid on | until the government is strong and stable enough to do so without | help. Now, I'm sure you're going to counter with the argument that | everything will be peachy-keen in Iraq if the US leaves. And you're | right, it will, if you define "peachy-keen" as "The Mahdi Army | overthrows the government, establishes a Shiite dominated Islamic | fundamentalist state, arrests and imprisons or executes anybody who | dissents, lines up all the troublemakers and lots of other innocents | who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and | shoots them, establishes a new secret police, and Moqtada Al-Sadr is | elected President for Life by a 110 percent majority".
No - I'm going to counter by reminding you that the US is there right now because our President declared Iraq to be a "clear and present danger" to the United States and directed his Secretary of Defense to send our military forces there to remove the weapons of mass destruction.
I understand that you're frustrated, as am I, but let's not lose sight of facts nor allow ourselves (or others) to duck responsibility for actions taken and not taken.
-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry, Bush already gave Cheney control of all weapons of mass destruction 5 months before 9/11.
Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Too bad the candidate of my choice is NEVER on the ballot - NONE OF THE ABOVE ;)
Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
nick hull wrote:
| Too bad the candidate of my choice is NEVER on the ballot - NONE OF | THE ABOVE ;)
I can't resist asking...
How much have you actually done to get the qualified candidate of your choice onto the ballot?
:-)
-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The <qualified> people Don't Want the job. The only way to get qualified people for most high government positions would be to draft them. Almost by definition, if you WANT the position of power, you probably can't be trusted not to abuse it.
aem sends...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As active as this thread is, could you take it to an appropriate group - or at least change the subject line. Please?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article

So you are a proponent of the Douglas Adams School of Politics, too.
"To summarize: it is a well known fact that those people who most WANT to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to it. Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
-Doug Adams _The Restaurant at The End of The Universe_
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Morris Dovey wrote:

Or worked to get a crooked politician out of office? (It was easy after the lawsuit.)
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I\'ve got my DD214 to
prove it.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Nice protest, but what if it was? What if that choice got the most votes?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Neither wins and are not allowed to run again that round. Do another election in that area until they get it right. I am thinking this would happen once at most and then people would tire of playing head games with politicians and just vote in whoever.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Gordon wrote:

An empty office can't pass bad bills, so what's your problem?
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I\'ve got my DD214 to
prove it.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It doesn't. It guarantees the Right to own a weapon. If you choose not to exercise that right...you don't have to.

You seem to have missed that tiny little "comma" between the first and second clauses in the verbiage as well as the third clause.
Is there some reason for your reading comprehension issues? Some form of autism perhaps?
Gunner

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's not a clause (except to a lawyer), because it contains no predicate. It's a phrase, and the sentence is a type called "nominative absolute." Nominative absolute sentences tell you nothing about the dependency of the clause ("the right of the people..." etc.) upon the phrase. It may be a dependency, or it may be incidental. Often it's a sufficient but not necessary condition.
Nobody ever gets this right, so don't feel badly about it. And it wouldn't be the first time the FFs wrote something that was intentionally ambiguous. The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to get the anti-federalists to calm down and ratify the Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.
Gunner does identify the source of the idea of our 2nd Amendment as a "right," however, which is English common law.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Huntress wrote:

Ed;
The Founding Fathers may have been unnecessarily ambigous in the phrasing of the Second Amendment but the Resolution of Congress that became the 2ND Amendment upon ratification by the states was NUMBER ONE on the list of Resolutions passed by Congress and sent to the states.
Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm not sure what that means. Was it the shortest one? It seems like it must have been the shortest.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.