On 4/27/2015 3:59 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-04-27 1:54 PM, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>>> Guido Barilla is quoted as saying "I would never do an advert with
>> > a homosexual family.... If the gays don't' like it they can go and
>> > eat another brand". So I have chosen to eat another brand.
>>
>> In no time they were backpedaling and the guy was saying words like
>> misunderstanding ... Oh, no, you were very clear, and people did take
>> you up on it to buy a different brand.
>>
>> There isn't enough hate in the world, some people have to spread
>> more around for no apparent reason.
>>
>
> I wouldn't say Barilla was pushing the hate. Someone with an agenda was
> grilling him and trying to make an issue of it. He was simple
> responding to questions that had nothing to do with his business.
>

What he said was a good business decision for him. If he had a ***
family in an advert, he'd upset many of his traditional customers. He's
entitled to an opinion whether we agree or not. I don't think any hate
is involved.

I still buy Barilla

On 2015-04-27 22:17, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

>> I wouldn't say Barilla was pushing the hate. Someone with an agenda was
>> grilling him and trying to make an issue of it. He was simple
>> responding to questions that had nothing to do with his business.
>>
>
> What he said was a good business decision for him. If he had a ***
> family in an advert, he'd upset many of his traditional customers. He's
> entitled to an opinion whether we agree or not. I don't think any hate
> is involved.
>
> I still buy Barilla

I imagine that for everyone who boycotts it several more will switch to
Barilla. Few people know or care about the so called boycott.

On 27/04/2015 9:01 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-04-27 22:17, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>>> I wouldn't say Barilla was pushing the hate. Someone with an agenda was
>>> grilling him and trying to make an issue of it. He was simple
>>> responding to questions that had nothing to do with his business.
>>>
>>
>> What he said was a good business decision for him. If he had a ***
>> family in an advert, he'd upset many of his traditional customers. He's
>> entitled to an opinion whether we agree or not. I don't think any hate
>> is involved.
>>
>> I still buy Barilla
>
> I imagine that for everyone who boycotts it several more will switch to
> Barilla. Few people know or care about the so called boycott.
>
Precisely! When Canada gets screwed by the US over some cross-border,
trade deal, I think shall I boycott Californian wine or Starbucks but
realise that it won't matter in the least.
Graham

--
"You say elevator, we say lift. You say aluminum,
we say aluminium. You say 'erbs', and we say 'herbs'
because there's a f***ing 'h' in it." Eddie Izzard.

On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 4:11:11 PM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 2015-04-26 12:52 PM, dalep wrote:
> >
> > I liked Barilla until the president of the company made anti ***
> > remarks. I have boycotted Barrilla every since.
> >
> You liked it but then you didn't like it because of the company
> president's comments? Why would you care about his attitude about gays,
> politics or religion? The guy is Italian. He is Catholic. He has
> traditional values. It is not like he was outspoken about it. It was
> not like he launched a campaign against homosexuals. He was being
> pressured to show some sort of *** family in the product's advertising
> and he made comments that I think are quite typical of Italian Catholics.
>
> I don't know what his personal views of *** issues has to do with the
> taste of his product. He was being interviewed about things that had
> nothing to do with his product. He did say he was in favour of ***
> marriage, though he opposed adoption by *** couples. I have to admit
> that I do not think there should be a right for *** couples to adopt.
> The way I see it is that there is a biological process for reproducing
> and it requires a male and a female. So if you want to have children
> you need to find a fertile spouse of the opposite sex.
>
> If you start farming children out to *** partners there is a serious
> risk of allegations of sexual abuse..... and I repeat.... allegations.
> Let's be frank. Adoptions often involve kids who have been emotionally
> damaged, and damaged kids are notorious for making allegations of
> molestation. Such allegations with set governments and adoption
> agencies for huge law suits... even if there is no basis to the claims.
>
>
Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Who cares what he said about gays, *******s, elephants, republicans,
democrats, Eskimos, Martians, Fords, Chevrolets, etc.? He has a right to
voice his opinion and it doesn't effect the quality of his product.

People want to get outraged and cop an attitude about the silliest
of things.

On 4/27/2015 5:02 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 15:18:02 -0700, "taxed and spent"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
>> news
>>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 12:39:23 -0600, "W. Lohman" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/27/2015 11:54 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>>>>> There isn't enough hate in the world, some people have to spread
>>>>> more around for no apparent reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> nancy
>>>>
>>>> Having an opinion is not the same as having hate.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing he said was indicative of hatred.
>>>
>>> Gender-based bias is hate.
>>>
>>
>> what about bias against single people?
>>
>
> What bias are you talking about?
>

Tax rates?

On 4/27/2015 5:03 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:31:10 -0600, "W. Lohman" > wrote:
>
>> On 4/27/2015 4:18 PM, taxed and spent wrote:
>>> "Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
>>> news >>>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 12:39:23 -0600, "W. Lohman" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/27/2015 11:54 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>>>>>> There isn't enough hate in the world, some people have to spread
>>>>>> more around for no apparent reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> nancy
>>>>>
>>>>> Having an opinion is not the same as having hate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing he said was indicative of hatred.
>>>>
>>>> Gender-based bias is hate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> what about bias against single people?
>>>
>>>
>> Point.
>
> Honey, the point is the top of your head.

I'm not your "honey", pops.

The point was lost on you long enough ago to be an artifact at best.

> You want to discuss, write it out, otherwise really, you are not funny
> or witty to enough to employ such brevity.

Taxation dear, taxation.

Develop a brain, please.

On 4/27/2015 5:05 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:23:40 -0600, "W. Lohman" > wrote:
>
>> On 4/27/2015 4:11 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 12:39:23 -0600, "W. Lohman" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/27/2015 11:54 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>>>>> There isn't enough hate in the world, some people have to spread
>>>>> more around for no apparent reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> nancy
>>>>
>>>> Having an opinion is not the same as having hate.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing he said was indicative of hatred.
>>>
>>> Gender-based bias is hate.
>>>
>> I disagree.
>>
>> It's a viewpoint, not anger.
>
>
> If you do not understand the use of the term "hate" in this context,
> go have someone explain it to you.
>

If you misconstrue simple differences in lifestyle and orientation as
"hate" the onus of bigotry is really upon you.

Do you endorse willing polygamists?

If not, why not?

Come on then, you're up.

On 4/27/2015 5:07 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:23:03 -0600, "W. Lohman" > wrote:
>
>> On 4/27/2015 4:10 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 12:41:29 -0600, "W. Lohman" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/27/2015 12:07 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:35:23 -0600, "W. Lohman" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/27/2015 10:03 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no tolerance for the intolerant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Boron
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's pretty intolerant of you.
>>>>>
>>>>> 100% so.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Points given for consistency....
>>>
>>> It has nothing to do with consistency, actually. It has a lot to do
>>> with morality.
>>
>> Subjective of course.
>
> That is the transparent cover that religious fanatics and the foaming
> right's bigots like to use to justify their prejudice.

Those are several misplaced class slanders in lieu of a substantive
rejoinder - predictably your pattern.

There's a lot less to you than even I had guessed, pops.

>>> Bigots should not be tolerated under any circumstances, and should be
>>> called out publicly at every opportunity to be shown there are
>>> consequences for their prejudice.
>>>
>>> Point, counterpoint.
>>
>> I tend to agree Shana!
>

On 4/27/2015 5:50 PM, taxed and spent wrote:
> "Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:23:03 -0600, "W. Lohman" > wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/27/2015 4:10 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 12:41:29 -0600, "W. Lohman" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/27/2015 12:07 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:35:23 -0600, "W. Lohman" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/27/2015 10:03 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have no tolerance for the intolerant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Boron
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's pretty intolerant of you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 100% so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Points given for consistency....
>>>>
>>>> It has nothing to do with consistency, actually. It has a lot to do
>>>> with morality.
>>>
>>> Subjective of course.
>>
>> That is the transparent cover that religious fanatics and the foaming
>> right's bigots like to use to justify their prejudice.
>
> You are clearly the bigot here. And I have no problem with that. It should
> be a free country.
>
>
It should indeed.

Choice trumps partisan or religious intolerance amongst those with insight.

On 4/27/2015 5:51 PM, taxed and spent wrote:
> "Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:23:40 -0600, "W. Lohman" > wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/27/2015 4:11 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 12:39:23 -0600, "W. Lohman" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/27/2015 11:54 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>>>>>> There isn't enough hate in the world, some people have to spread
>>>>>> more around for no apparent reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> nancy
>>>>>
>>>>> Having an opinion is not the same as having hate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing he said was indicative of hatred.
>>>>
>>>> Gender-based bias is hate.
>>>>
>>> I disagree.
>>>
>>> It's a viewpoint, not anger.
>>
>>
>> If you do not understand the use of the term "hate" in this context,
>> go have someone explain it to you.
>
> We understand the meaning of the term "hate" in this context. Anyone who
> disagrees, does so due to hate. Got it!
>
>
His rules, his imaginary bigotry.

On 4/27/2015 5:51 PM, taxed and spent wrote:
> "Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 15:18:02 -0700, "taxed and spent"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
>>> news >>>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 12:39:23 -0600, "W. Lohman" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/27/2015 11:54 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>>>>>> There isn't enough hate in the world, some people have to spread
>>>>>> more around for no apparent reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> nancy
>>>>>
>>>>> Having an opinion is not the same as having hate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing he said was indicative of hatred.
>>>>
>>>> Gender-based bias is hate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> what about bias against single people?
>>>
>>
>> What bias are you talking about?
>
> you're kidding, right?
>
>
Sadly no.

He's asleep and awake.

On 4/27/2015 9:17 PM, graham wrote:
> On 27/04/2015 9:01 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2015-04-27 22:17, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>>> I wouldn't say Barilla was pushing the hate. Someone with an agenda was
>>>> grilling him and trying to make an issue of it. He was simple
>>>> responding to questions that had nothing to do with his business.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What he said was a good business decision for him. If he had a ***
>>> family in an advert, he'd upset many of his traditional customers. He's
>>> entitled to an opinion whether we agree or not. I don't think any hate
>>> is involved.
>>>
>>> I still buy Barilla
>>
>> I imagine that for everyone who boycotts it several more will switch to
>> Barilla. Few people know or care about the so called boycott.
>>
> Precisely! When Canada gets screwed by the US over some cross-border,
> trade deal, I think shall I boycott Californian wine or Starbucks but
> realise that it won't matter in the least.
> Graham
>

We're thrilled that you let Putin control our uranium supply.

In article >, Boron Elgar
> wrote:

> Gender-based bias is hate.

That's a nice troll! Two now in this thread. Then I read down. Three.
Good job! I didn't think you did that. You damned near got me on the
first one.

leo

On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 00:22:28 -0700, Leonard Blaisdell
> wrote:

>In article >, Boron Elgar
> wrote:
>
>> Gender-based bias is hate.
>
>That's a nice troll! Two now in this thread. Then I read down. Three.
>Good job! I didn't think you did that. You damned near got me on the
>first one.
>
>leo

I have been posting in this group for over 15 years and never hesitate
to call out stupidity.

I call you.

On 2015-04-27 2:08 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:

>> You finally got one right, King Troll!
>>
>> Good boy.
>
> Except that retail businesses *DO,* at times, increase sales and
> perhaps market share by weighing in on social controversies.

They also benefit from attempts of other groups to organize boycotts
against them. One of the interesting things about public images is that
it is sometimes better to have a negative image (in some circles) than
to be unknown. Companies spend a lot of money on advertizing to get
their name known. I don't doubt that there is a percentage of people
who may or may not have been loyal customers to an inexpensive brand of
pasta who will now boycott it, but there is a good chance that just as
many people will counter the boycott.

On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 23:01:10 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2015-04-27 22:17, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>>> I wouldn't say Barilla was pushing the hate. Someone with an agenda was
>>> grilling him and trying to make an issue of it. He was simple
>>> responding to questions that had nothing to do with his business.
>>>
>>
>> What he said was a good business decision for him. If he had a ***
>> family in an advert, he'd upset many of his traditional customers. He's
>> entitled to an opinion whether we agree or not. I don't think any hate
>> is involved.
>>
>> I still buy Barilla
>
>I imagine that for everyone who boycotts it several more will switch to
>Barilla. Few people know or care about the so called boycott.

I haven't heard of any pasta boycot, I buy whichever brand is on sale
(even the store brand), same as I do with Coke and Pepsi... there are
very few food products that I display brand loyalty.

On 2015-04-28 10:02 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:

> If straight people get to choose those "benefits," why should those
> choices be denied to LGBT people?
>
> If you do not like marriage benefits, then argue them with your
> lawmakers.


Consider some of the fall out we have seen here from the *** marriage
issue. When it was legalized here there were big public ceremonies and
the happy couples had their names and addresses plastered all over the
media. One of those was a female couple who went on to become the first
same sex divorce. We can't know their names now because the no longer
happy couple wanted a publication ban on their names. Funny how they
loved the attention when they got married.

Then there was a female couple, one from Florida one from the UK.
Their union went down the tubes shortly after their marriage and they
returned to their respective former jurisdictions. They wanted to
divorce but could not because the neither jurisdiction recognized same
sex marriages. Canada has residency requirements for divorce because it
is not interested in becoming a quickie divorce destination, and that
has more to do with settlements, alimony, custody and child support than
anything else. These women were partitioning the government to change
our laws to enable their divorce. Our government has enough on its
plate dealing with the things that are important to Canadians and it is
rather bold of these people to expect the government of Canada to make
changes to our federal laws where the purpose is to facilitate divorces
for foreigners.



>
> Oh, and you are still being an idiot.
>

Such a bitchy remark.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2015-04-28 10:02 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
>
>> If straight people get to choose those "benefits," why should those
>> choices be denied to LGBT people?
>>
>> If you do not like marriage benefits, then argue them with your
>> lawmakers.
>
>
> Consider some of the fall out we have seen here from the *** marriage
> issue. When it was legalized here there were big public ceremonies and the
> happy couples had their names and addresses plastered all over the media.
> One of those was a female couple who went on to become the first same sex
> divorce. We can't know their names now because the no longer happy couple
> wanted a publication ban on their names. Funny how they loved the
> attention when they got married.
>
> Then there was a female couple, one from Florida one from the UK. Their
> union went down the tubes shortly after their marriage and they returned
> to their respective former jurisdictions. They wanted to divorce but
> could not because the neither jurisdiction recognized same sex marriages.
> Canada has residency requirements for divorce because it is not interested
> in becoming a quickie divorce destination, and that has more to do with
> settlements, alimony, custody and child support than anything else. These
> women were partitioning the government to change our laws to enable their
> divorce. Our government has enough on its plate dealing with the things
> that are important to Canadians and it is rather bold of these people to
> expect the government of Canada to make changes to our federal laws where
> the purpose is to facilitate divorces for foreigners.
>
>
>
>>
>> Oh, and you are still being an idiot.
>>
>
> Such a bitchy remark.
>

clearly hateful.

On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 12:12:38 AM UTC-4, Travis McGee wrote:
> http://www.latimes.com/food/la-fo-ca...425-story.html
>
> I thought that this was very interesting; I have always wondered why
> anyone would buy a premium pasta, as the cheap stuff tastes good to me.
> I never occurred to me that the surface texture would make such a
> difference. I am going to give the Barilla a try soon to see if it is
> really a noticeable difference.
>
> Lost pasta brand sparks Test Kitchen pot-boiler to find best dried
> By Russ Parsons
>
> For a busy weekday cook, having a good dried spaghetti in the pantry is
> about 90% of having dinner made. Dress it with butter and Parmigiano
> Reggiano, or chopped fresh tomatoes and olive oil, and you have a
> memorable meal with little more than the time and effort it took to boil
> water.
>
> When my go-to daily spaghetti brand disappeared from store shelves, I
> was bereft, robbed of the foundation for a dozen easy meals.
> Fortunately, the L.A. Times Test Kitchen was there to help. I bought 10
> supermarket brands of spaghetti, all of them priced less than $4 a
> pound, and then we cooked them.
>
> In the end, I found my replacement pasta, but there were some
> significant surprises along the way, including a gluten-free that was
> nearly as good as our favorites.
>
> First, let's specify that what we're talking about is dried spaghetti
> noodles made from wheat, water and not much else (some brands both
> domestic and Italian add vitamins and minerals for the American market).
> Egg pastas that have been dried are not the same thing.
>
> But even with such a simple ingredient, there is good and not-so-good.
> The difference is not what you might expect: The actual flavor of the
> noodles we tasted varied little. Tasting naked spaghetti is like
> differentiating among various degrees of beige.
>
> When the differences really showed up was after we dressed the noodles
> with a little inexpensive bottled sauce. Because the most important
> thing about a pasta is how it carries flavor, and that can vary
> dramatically. Stirred with the same jarred sauce, some spaghetti tasted
> simple and bland while others tasted almost like something we'd make at
> home.
>
> When we went back over the spaghetti brands we liked best, the thing we
> found in common was a rough, almost pitted texture on the uncooked
> noodles. This is what carries the sauce and allows you to get the full
> effect of it rather than just whatever liquid managed to cling to the
> noodle.
>
> Which spaghetti did we like best? The Garofalo sold at Costco and
> Amazon.com ($3.81 per pound), Whole Foods' store-brand 365 "organic"
> ($1.49) and supermarket staple Barilla ($1.49).
>
> That gluten-free? It was also from Barilla ($3.29). It had terrific bite
> and only a little of the mealy texture you might expect from a dried
> noodle made without the benefit of gluten from hard wheat. The package
> reads, "Made with corn and rice."
>
> One thing we found curious was the difference between two seemingly
> similar noodles, one we bought at Trader Joe's labeled Lucio Garofalo
> (99 cents) and the more expensive Costco brand that we liked, labeled
> simply Garofalo.
>
> When you read the fine print, they both had the same simple ingredients
> (semolina and durum wheat), but more significantly they both gave the
> same address for the manufacturer (indeed, the Garofalo website lists
> the full name as Pastificio Lucio Garofalo).
>
> But while the Trader Joe's brand wasn't bad, it certainly wasn't as good
> as the other Garofalo. And when we inspected the raw noodles, we could
> see why: The Trader Joe's version was nearly smooth, while the
> Costco/Amazon version was the most pitted of any of the pastas we tested.
>
> We've done these tastings a couple of times over the years with a mix of
> high-end and everyday brands. The Latini brand had won both. It was
> certainly a terrific pasta, but it seems to have disappeared (one
> importer says the brand was sold and is no longer making pasta at all).
> Rustichella d'Abruzzo did well both times






too, but with it costing as
> much as $8 per pound, it may be a bit pricey for everyday use.
>
> After all, there's no need to break the bank for what should be the
> daily luxury of a simple, well-prepared plate of pasta.

I got more Barilla whole grain rotini today, trying to steer the thread back to pasta.

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 22:15:42 -0700, isw > wrote:
snip
>
>You can find bronze-die extruded pasta if you look; I think it's worth
>the difference because of the way the sauce clings to the pasta better.
>
>Isaac

This is the pasta I buy and it is easily available at Costco.
http://www.pastagarofalo.it/us_en/
Janet US

On 2015-04-28 10:41 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> Most executives are better off not talking to the press. They are often
> looking to bring out the worst in people and in this case, he obliged.
> Stick to running the business and hire a publicist if needed.
>

Most people are better off not talking to the press. They like to talk
about the who where what when and why for a good story but the usually
are more interested in a sound bite and twisting the few facts they have
to make a sensational story. Having been interviewed a few times on the
job and then reading the articles I had to wonder who the hell they had
been talking to. That is why most most government departments and big
companies don't want their employees talking to the press. They have
media relations people to so their talking for them, people who are
trained in how to get the message that they want delivered and who know
how not to get sucked into the idiotic questions that reporters dream up
to try to trap you into fueling some controversy.




> I don't care about his opinions, one way or the other. You can pretty
> much bet that every corporation that has a board of directs has one
> executive that has anti-something ideas that you don't agree with. Just
> like real life amongst the general population. Smart ones keep their
> mouth shut.
>
> Most of us don't agree with the politics of middle eastern countries and
> their dictators, yet we burn their oil every day. How about we boycott
> them?

On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:40:58 -0600, "W. Lohman" > wrote:


>
>Funny thing, Venezuela nationalizes anything we do down there and Brazil
>is wracked by corruption.
>

Venezuela is no hotbed of socialist delight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Venezuela

On 2015-04-28 5:36 PM, wrote:

>> Most of us don't agree with the politics of middle eastern countries and
>> their dictators, yet we burn their oil every day. How about we boycott
>> them?
>
> Why not just give them some more 'freedom'?
> Problem solved

It may be hard for some people to understand, but not everyone in the
world appreciates freedom and democracy. We have billions of people who
live with strict religious beliefs and political ideologies who think
that there is a more important power than popular thought.

The West supported Saddam Hussein for a long time. Maybe he stopped
jumping high enough for them, or maybe he offended some other group that
has a powerful lobby, but he ended up being painted as a rogue who
needed to be taken out. It was okay when he used chemical weapons
against Iranians because they were an enemy to the west. It wasn't so
good when he used them against the Kurds. He may have been a *******
but he was our *******. As it turned out, some of the people he was
oppressing so ruthlessly were the same fanatics that we are now having
to deal with.

On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 18:23:22 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2015-04-28 5:36 PM, wrote:
>
>>> Most of us don't agree with the politics of middle eastern countries and
>>> their dictators, yet we burn their oil every day. How about we boycott
>>> them?
>>
>> Why not just give them some more 'freedom'?
>> Problem solved
>
>It may be hard for some people to understand, but not everyone in the
>world appreciates freedom and democracy. We have billions of people who
>live with strict religious beliefs and political ideologies who think
>that there is a more important power than popular thought.
>
>The West supported Saddam Hussein for a long time. Maybe he stopped
>jumping high enough for them, or maybe he offended some other group that
>has a powerful lobby, but he ended up being painted as a rogue who
>needed to be taken out. It was okay when he used chemical weapons
>against Iranians because they were an enemy to the west. It wasn't so
>good when he used them against the Kurds. He may have been a *******
>but he was our *******. As it turned out, some of the people he was
>oppressing so ruthlessly were the same fanatics that we are now having
>to deal with.

He is what is known as an 'useful idiot'. The U.S has had them
installed in many countries around the world.

On 2015-04-28 6:41 PM, wrote:

>> The West supported Saddam Hussein for a long time. Maybe he stopped
>> jumping high enough for them, or maybe he offended some other group that
>> has a powerful lobby, but he ended up being painted as a rogue who
>> needed to be taken out. It was okay when he used chemical weapons
>> against Iranians because they were an enemy to the west. It wasn't so
>> good when he used them against the Kurds. He may have been a *******
>> but he was our *******. As it turned out, some of the people he was
>> oppressing so ruthlessly were the same fanatics that we are now having
>> to deal with.
>
> He is what is known as an 'useful idiot'. The U.S has had them
> installed in many countries around the world.
>

As opposed to the useless idiot they elected as president... twice.

On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 10:02:33 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>
*Snip*


*Snip*


*Snip*


*Snip*

> I got more Barilla whole grain rotini today, trying to steer the thread back to pasta
>
>
Arrgghhhhh, learn to trim your posts.

On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 21:15:17 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> Oil can be sourced globally, but we choose to buy it, often from foreigh
> corporations that do reveal sources. We have choices.

The oil that is sourced in North America is put on the world market
and (unlike in the grocery store) there is no sign on the gas pump
that indicates where the oil came from. The good news is that North
American, the USA in particular is poised to dominate the world market
of oil. I hope we spend the time we're crushing Arab oil prices
developing alternative sources of energy so we aren't under their
thumb again after our oil reserves are depleted.

I know the typical response it "I'll be dead by that time", but I care
anyway.

--

sf

On 28/04/2015 8:50 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 21:15:17 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> Oil can be sourced globally, but we choose to buy it, often from foreigh
>> corporations that do reveal sources. We have choices.
>
> The oil that is sourced in North America is put on the world market
> and (unlike in the grocery store) there is no sign on the gas pump
> that indicates where the oil came from. The good news is that North
> American, the USA in particular is poised to dominate the world market
> of oil. I hope we spend the time we're crushing Arab oil prices
> developing alternative sources of energy so we aren't under their
> thumb again after our oil reserves are depleted.
>
Except that those US oil reserves in shale need a price of at least
$75/barrel
to develop. ISTR the Saudis can do it for $12.
Graham

On 4/28/2015 12:41 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:40:58 -0600, "W. Lohman" > wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Funny thing, Venezuela nationalizes anything we do down there and Brazil
>> is wracked by corruption.
>>
>
> Venezuela is no hotbed of socialist delight.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Venezuela
>

I agree, it's regressive commie oppression.

On 4/28/2015 8:50 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 21:15:17 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> Oil can be sourced globally, but we choose to buy it, often from foreigh
>> corporations that do reveal sources. We have choices.
>
> The oil that is sourced in North America is put on the world market
> and (unlike in the grocery store) there is no sign on the gas pump
> that indicates where the oil came from. The good news is that North
> American, the USA in particular is poised to dominate the world market
> of oil. I hope we spend the time we're crushing Arab oil prices
> developing alternative sources of energy so we aren't under their
> thumb again after our oil reserves are depleted.
>
> I know the typical response it "I'll be dead by that time", but I care
> anyway.
>

Oh heck yes!

On 4/28/2015 10:12 PM, graham wrote:
> On 28/04/2015 8:50 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 21:15:17 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>>> Oil can be sourced globally, but we choose to buy it, often from foreigh
>>> corporations that do reveal sources. We have choices.
>>
>> The oil that is sourced in North America is put on the world market
>> and (unlike in the grocery store) there is no sign on the gas pump
>> that indicates where the oil came from. The good news is that North
>> American, the USA in particular is poised to dominate the world market
>> of oil. I hope we spend the time we're crushing Arab oil prices
>> developing alternative sources of energy so we aren't under their
>> thumb again after our oil reserves are depleted.
>>
> Except that those US oil reserves in shale need a price of at least
> $75/barrel
> to develop. ISTR the Saudis can do it for $12.
> Graham


You're wrong.

Very wrong.

Depending on the shale bed pricing can go form as low as the upper $30
range to $75.

I can assure you that shale plays in the Barnett and Eagle Ford can be
productive under $45.

On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 22:12:07 -0600, graham > wrote:

> On 28/04/2015 8:50 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 21:15:17 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> >
> >> Oil can be sourced globally, but we choose to buy it, often from foreigh
> >> corporations that do reveal sources. We have choices.
> >
> > The oil that is sourced in North America is put on the world market
> > and (unlike in the grocery store) there is no sign on the gas pump
> > that indicates where the oil came from. The good news is that North
> > American, the USA in particular is poised to dominate the world market
> > of oil. I hope we spend the time we're crushing Arab oil prices
> > developing alternative sources of energy so we aren't under their
> > thumb again after our oil reserves are depleted.
> >
> Except that those US oil reserves in shale need a price of at least
> $75/barrel
> to develop. ISTR the Saudis can do it for $12.
>
The cost of production is coming down rapidly and unlike traditional
oil wells, they can open or close the spigot at the turn of the stock
market. In the mean time, Saudis will need to be pumping oil even in
the deepest recession.

--

sf

On 4/29/2015 5:14 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
> Remember, too, that many boycotts are instigated and encouraged by the
> workers themselves, to call attention to their poor working
> conditions.
>
> Boron


The pasta makers are being oppressed?

Boron Elgar wrote:
>
> Remember, too, that many boycotts are instigated and encouraged by the
> workers themselves, to call attention to their poor working
> conditions.

Stupid too. Instigate a boycott and lose work. Kind of like the
blacks rioting in Baltimore now...destroying their own neighborhoods
as a "protest" for whatever problem they have. I need to read more of
the story though. Don't even know the why of this nonsense.

On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:09:04 -0600, "W. Lohman" > wrote:

>On 4/29/2015 5:14 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
>> Remember, too, that many boycotts are instigated and encouraged by the
>> workers themselves, to call attention to their poor working
>> conditions.
>>
>> Boron
>
>
>The pasta makers are being oppressed?

Congrats on the non-sequitur of the year award.

On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:38:07 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>Boron Elgar wrote:
>>
>> Remember, too, that many boycotts are instigated and encouraged by the
>> workers themselves, to call attention to their poor working
>> conditions.
>
>Stupid too. Instigate a boycott and lose work. Kind of like the
>blacks rioting in Baltimore now...destroying their own neighborhoods
>as a "protest" for whatever problem they have. I need to read more of
>the story though. Don't even know the why of this nonsense.

Don't know much about the labor movement, do you?

On 28/04/2015 10:56 PM, W. Lohman wrote:
> On 4/28/2015 10:12 PM, graham wrote:
>> On 28/04/2015 8:50 PM, sf wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 21:15:17 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oil can be sourced globally, but we choose to buy it, often from
>>>> foreigh
>>>> corporations that do reveal sources. We have choices.
>>>
>>> The oil that is sourced in North America is put on the world market
>>> and (unlike in the grocery store) there is no sign on the gas pump
>>> that indicates where the oil came from. The good news is that North
>>> American, the USA in particular is poised to dominate the world market
>>> of oil. I hope we spend the time we're crushing Arab oil prices
>>> developing alternative sources of energy so we aren't under their
>>> thumb again after our oil reserves are depleted.
>>>
>> Except that those US oil reserves in shale need a price of at least
>> $75/barrel
>> to develop. ISTR the Saudis can do it for $12.
>> Graham
>
>
> You're wrong.
>
> Very wrong.
>
> Depending on the shale bed pricing can go form as low as the upper $30
> range to $75.
>
> I can assure you that shale plays in the Barnett and Eagle Ford can be
> productive under $45.
>
>
I completed 2 projects on the Eagle Ford for a Texas-based client last
year so I checked with them.
The Eagle Ford is *barely* economic at $50. IOW, that's in ideal cases
and the actual average is higher than this. The Permian Basin needs a
much higher price. The Barnett is a gas play.
Perhaps you've noticed that the Eagle Ford is *so economic* under the
present conditions that all the players have been able to lay off
workers and mothball drilling rigs!
Graham

--

Boron Elgar wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:38:07 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>
> >Boron Elgar wrote:
> >>
> >> Remember, too, that many boycotts are instigated and encouraged by the
> >> workers themselves, to call attention to their poor working
> >> conditions.
> >
> >Stupid too. Instigate a boycott and lose work. Kind of like the
> >blacks rioting in Baltimore now...destroying their own neighborhoods
> >as a "protest" for whatever problem they have. I need to read more of
> >the story though. Don't even know the why of this nonsense.
>
> Don't know much about the labor movement, do you?

It helps the unions gain more power.

I just looked up this current thing....
A black dies in police custody. After the funeral, all the blacks in
the community riot, loot and burn their own neighborhood. Good
thinking.

This is only the "poor black trash." Nothing else to do with their
worthless lives. And I'm not being racist here. White trash can be
just as stupid. This is just an excuse to riot, party, and LOOT
stores (getting free stuff). All in the name of some cause that most
probably don't even care about.

I say, shoot them all. Nothing but a bunch of troublemakers.

oh boy, I'm in trouble now. ;-D

On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 7:22:48 AM UTC-10, Gary wrote:
> Boron Elgar wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:38:07 -0400, Gary > wrote:
> >
> > >Boron Elgar wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Remember, too, that many boycotts are instigated and encouraged by the
> > >> workers themselves, to call attention to their poor working
> > >> conditions.
> > >
> > >Stupid too. Instigate a boycott and lose work. Kind of like the
> > >blacks rioting in Baltimore now...destroying their own neighborhoods
> > >as a "protest" for whatever problem they have. I need to read more of
> > >the story though. Don't even know the why of this nonsense.
> >
> > Don't know much about the labor movement, do you?
>
> It helps the unions gain more power.
>
> I just looked up this current thing....
> A black dies in police custody. After the funeral, all the blacks in
> the community riot, loot and burn their own neighborhood. Good
> thinking.
>
> This is only the "poor black trash." Nothing else to do with their
> worthless lives. And I'm not being racist here. White trash can be
> just as stupid. This is just an excuse to riot, party, and LOOT
> stores (getting free stuff). All in the name of some cause that most
> probably don't even care about.
>
> I say, shoot them all. Nothing but a bunch of troublemakers.
>
> oh boy, I'm in trouble now. ;-D

You in a heap of trouble now boy!

On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 10:37:59 AM UTC-5, Gary wrote:
> Boron Elgar wrote:
> >
> > Remember, too, that many boycotts are instigated and encouraged by the
> > workers themselves, to call attention to their poor working
> > conditions.
>
> Stupid too. Instigate a boycott and lose work. Kind of like the
> blacks rioting in Baltimore now...destroying their own neighborhoods
> as a "protest" for whatever problem they have. I need to read more of
> the story though. Don't even know the why of this nonsense.

They should be burning down buildings where Fascists are know to be inside.

--Bryan