Posted on 05/07/2006 10:28:12 AM PDT by NorthEasterner
The answer is "No", you have to live when you live and do the best with those times, whatever they be.
Good luck.
That's because it was a typo
Should have been
"And for that matter, would it really be healthy for each generation to wish they had been born earlier instead of the embracing the world they have now?"
>>The answer is "No", you have to live when you live and do the best with those times, whatever they be.
Good luck<<
Thank you, and of course embracing the world today should not stop us from respecting and appreciating what came before.
Don't make me regret letting you back in.
""The elites in Washington, D.C., New York City and the United Nations seem to have plotted a journey to lead America into the New World Order where a cosmopolitan global citizen is no more connected to his country than a sociopath to his fellow man." ---
****
What a surprise. I am glad I'm 59 and not a child in this nation now.
This country and its leaders are acting like filth to the memories and sacrifices of The Founding Fathers and of others.
It disgusts me. I'd hate to be a child now!"
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. – John Adams (1814)
At least we didn't use to be a democracy.. that must be our problem.. acting like a democracy.. Those that know should spit(like Adams) when they hear the word democracy.. for democracy is MOB Rule.. always was, always will be.. The English have an excuse, they know no better.. Monarchy is another form of Mob Rule..
I have recently assembled almost all of the Durants' Story of Civilization. The only one that I am missing is the first one, Our Oriental Heritage. I've bought them one at the time as used books that I found via Amazon. The only reason that I don't have the first one is that I feel so overwhelmed with ~Western~ civilization that I just don't see myself biting off the Orient. Actually, I have pretty much pushed the second and third volumes, which concern the classical period, indefinitely to the side. Not that they are not crucial to the story, but you can only do what you can do.
I got obsessed with European history -- mostly viewed in terms of France -- back in 1991 (before the recent, most furious round of well-deserved anger toward the French had taken hold). I started gathering books, mostly used, and one-by-one, acquired the Durant books. I was inspired by having closely read (highlighter in hand) Will's Story of Philosopy.
The Durant books are a delicious read, although I confess to not having done that much with them. I remember them being continuously advertised as signup premiums for the BOMC back in the 70s. (I took the Bartlett's, which I still love and an unabridged dictionary, which was a waste.) I thought at the time that the Durant set was a bit like a leather-bound encyclopedia...mostly something for show. Only years later did I appreciate what a lively account of history they are.
I think that Barnes and Noble may have reprinted them over the years, but they are not all so easy to come by now. Some of them cost ~several~ bucks for a good used copy. And, of course, my set is unmatched, which I actually rather like. (I also like "rescuing" unmarked used books in good condition.)
Now I have accumulated so many books on European, mostly French, history that I don't know if I ever will read through all the Durant books. I regard it as "security" for my retirement, which is now upon me! I will not be bored.
Oh, Dimitri Vassilaros (the author)? Are you going back to where your ancestors came from, or are you only going to hang out in my country and complain?
"Many is not the same as "most", and I'd say 240,000 undesirables is "many" undesirables.
ping
Quix said:
"REGARDLESS, Bush is the best we have or are likely to have the next few years. And we must do what we can to support him as well as insist on Conservative values and actions."
Bush is the best we have because he's in office till 2008. That doesn't mean we need to support him when virtually everything he does is contrary to our values and to the best interests of America.
Yes we need to keep the Democrats out. Out of the House at the very least. But what does that have to do with Bush? In my view, the best recipe for success in this year's election is for Republicans in Congress to not campaign with Bush and to speak out forthrightly that they are no Bush lackeys and then explain the critical policy areas where they disagree with him, such as on his borrow and spend fiscal policy and most importantly, on his open borders non-enforcement approach to illegal immigration.
Another good strategy for the 2006 election in my view is this: Try to make it not Republicans against Democrats but House against the Senate.
House Republicans should point out that they are trying to exert some fiscal discipline, but the Ted Kennedy Republicans in the Senate won't go along.
And they are trying to enforce our border, but the Ted Kennedy Republicans in the Senate instead want to blast our borders wide open.
As you can probably guess, I won't be shedding a lot of tears if some of the Ted Kennedy Republicans in the Senate lose in November.
And then, in the coming 2-3 election cycles, I think there is a golden opportunity for real Republicans in the House to run primary campaigns against the Ted Kennedy Republicans in the Senate, and we can gradually purge that legislative body of those undesirable hybrids.
You are correct. Although I checked on the Senate website, and found the list of Presidents Pro Tem, but for some reason thought that Strom Thurman was a Democrat, and thus the Democrats were in control of the Senate in 1996.
So that should be amended to read the RINO Senate. Here's the breakdown for the Clinton years. :
103rd Congress (1993-1995)
Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (43 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 100
Note: Party division changed to 56 Democrats and 44 Republicans after the June 5, 1993 election of Kay B. Hutchison (R-TX).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
104th Congress (1995-1997)
Majority Party: Republican (52 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 100
Note: Party ratio changed to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats after Richard Shelby of Alabama switched from the Democratic to Republican party on November 9, 1994. It changed again, to 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats, when Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado switched from the Democratic to Republican party on March 3, 1995. When Robert Packwood (R-OR) resigned on October 1, 1995, the Senate divided between 53 Republicans and 46 Democrats with one vacancy. Ron Wyden (D) returned the ratio to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats when he was elected to fill the vacant Oregon seat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
105th Congress (1997-1999)
Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
106th Congress (1999-2001)
Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 100
Presidents Pro Tem
----
102nd Congress (1991-1993)
Robert C. Byrd (WV)
January 3, 1991 - January 4, 1993
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103rd Congress (1993-1995)
Robert C. Byrd (WV)
January 5, 1993 - January 3, 1995
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
104th Congress (1995-1997)
Strom Thurmond (SC)
January 4, 1995 - January 6, 1997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
105th Congress (1997-1999)
Strom Thurmond (SC)
January 7, 1997 - January 6, 1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
106th Congress (1999-2001)
Strom Thurmond (SC)
January 7, 1999-January 3, 2001
The M-60, generally considered a POS by machine gun aficionados, has itself been replaced by the M-240/Mag 58, and the M-249 SAW. The FN MAG 58 was already in existence when the Army decided to "buy American" and got the M-60. (Both the M-240/MAG 58 and M-249/Minimi are FN designs) The FN MAG design is basically that of the M-1918 BAR, turned upside down and adapted for belt feed. The BAR design was of course a product of the American firearms genius, John M. Browning. FN and John M. Browning had a long history together. In fact FN now owns the Browning company, along with the former US Repeating Arms, which made firearms under the Winchester name, which is unfortunately owned by Olin, who does make Winchester brand ammunition. Winchester too had along history with John M. Browning.
Habla Espanol? -----> ¿Hablas español? (informal 2nd person) OR ¿Habla usted español? (formal 2ndperson or third person singular).
....... unless what came before sucked.
;-)
My mother who died about twenty five years ago had the whole set. I think they were one of the earlier ones. I was also lucky enough to go to a flea market early one morning about twenty years ago and come across some unknowing, less-than-totally literate character who had cleaned out a house after someone died. He sold me a perfectly great entire set for $25.00. LOL.
I gave that to my mother-in-law years ago ........ what a mistake.
;-)
The problem is though that Russia never actually collapsed, it was by design... (USSR in it's old configuration was too expensive and not efficient)
"Who will you shoot at?"
Anyone with the intention of shooting at me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.