[NotCranky]

R.O and M.P.O are not the same people.

MultipleProperty Owner was always Multiple Property Owner and R.O. was a couple of street names and now has been only R.O for a week or two.

[NotCranky]

Jumby is a nice guy. He is absolutely not R.O.

Del Cerro is more or less 20 minutes from down town and the house will fit Jumby’s price parameter if it doesn’t already.

[NotCranky]

Jumby is a nice guy. He is absolutely not R.O.

Del Cerro is more or less 20 minutes from down town and the house will fit Jumby’s price parameter if it doesn’t already.

[NotCranky]

Jumby is a nice guy. He is absolutely not R.O.

Del Cerro is more or less 20 minutes from down town and the house will fit Jumby’s price parameter if it doesn’t already.

[NotCranky]

Jumby is a nice guy. He is absolutely not R.O.

Del Cerro is more or less 20 minutes from down town and the house will fit Jumby’s price parameter if it doesn’t already.

[NotCranky]

Jumby is a nice guy. He is absolutely not R.O.

Del Cerro is more or less 20 minutes from down town and the house will fit Jumby’s price parameter if it doesn’t already.

[NotCranky]

Not everyone can afford or even values owning the residential equivalent of a faberge egg. Houses in California have been ugly forever anyway except those of really rich people. Houses are ugly, to varying degrees of course, unless you have a ton of money and want to spend it there. I do agree that poximity of the big houses and lack of variety too, makes them even uglier. I have an ugly house but the space around kind of fixes it up a little.
I see house as a replacement for a cave so I don’t even know why we care.Just kidding,sort of…

[NotCranky]

Not everyone can afford or even values owning the residential equivalent of a faberge egg. Houses in California have been ugly forever anyway except those of really rich people. Houses are ugly, to varying degrees of course, unless you have a ton of money and want to spend it there. I do agree that poximity of the big houses and lack of variety too, makes them even uglier. I have an ugly house but the space around kind of fixes it up a little.
I see house as a replacement for a cave so I don’t even know why we care.Just kidding,sort of…

[NotCranky]

Not everyone can afford or even values owning the residential equivalent of a faberge egg. Houses in California have been ugly forever anyway except those of really rich people. Houses are ugly, to varying degrees of course, unless you have a ton of money and want to spend it there. I do agree that poximity of the big houses and lack of variety too, makes them even uglier. I have an ugly house but the space around kind of fixes it up a little.
I see house as a replacement for a cave so I don’t even know why we care.Just kidding,sort of…

[NotCranky]

Not everyone can afford or even values owning the residential equivalent of a faberge egg. Houses in California have been ugly forever anyway except those of really rich people. Houses are ugly, to varying degrees of course, unless you have a ton of money and want to spend it there. I do agree that poximity of the big houses and lack of variety too, makes them even uglier. I have an ugly house but the space around kind of fixes it up a little.
I see house as a replacement for a cave so I don’t even know why we care.Just kidding,sort of…

[NotCranky]

Not everyone can afford or even values owning the residential equivalent of a faberge egg. Houses in California have been ugly forever anyway except those of really rich people. Houses are ugly, to varying degrees of course, unless you have a ton of money and want to spend it there. I do agree that poximity of the big houses and lack of variety too, makes them even uglier. I have an ugly house but the space around kind of fixes it up a little.
I see house as a replacement for a cave so I don’t even know why we care.Just kidding,sort of…

[NotCranky]

Yes I had already decided that you are taking a pragmatic tone compared to my idealistic one.

Even WW2, the U.S. had ulterior motives. Western Europe was our market place. I think overall I won’t fight the “just war” concept that prevailed at the time and still does. I have no doubt that the behind the scenes bankers and businessmen alike were influencing policy and perhaps spin. We also never know if the U.S. would have gone to war with less high motives at the time. What we do know is that we went to war and it played out favorably for our position.

On nationalism or jingoism being part of your motivation for your beliefs, I don’t know and won’t venture to say.I doubt it.

“As far as going to war when a more credible alternative exists: Where you speaking of Iraq?”

No, I was being philosophical. I was really hinting that the U.S. might have used its power better towards avoiding a third world war type conflagration or a future clash of empires in any case.

Here is a second answer to the same question:

“As far as going to war when a more credible alternative exists: Where you speaking of Iraq?”

No, I was being philosophical.
Iraq might be a good case in point though.
The entire middle east for that matter, anything to do with oil. I believe this obligation to protect human rights issues come back up too. I just don’t really buy it as being very focal, regardless of how long sanctions and other “diplomatic” efforts were in effect.

“Diplomacy” = warfare without weapons.

Africa would be the region of interest for my criticism of US willingness to appease other less dominant but powerful nations, that coincidentally happen to be allies, or at least nations we have diplomatic relations with. How is a guy not supposed to be cynical about that?

I will look for any response . I have enjoyed this discussion. I’ll have to get with the program on the domestic front(no pun intended) and will have less time for serious discourse for a while.

My wife and I were discussing this exchange relative to how useful tasks could be created by an educator for his/her students.

One idea: Russ/Allan write a page on everything you learned from each other and include area of the discussion you would like to develop further.

Rus and Allan debate over. Allan you are the idealist,Rus you are the pragmatist for the sake of the exercise.

Or: write and essay incorporating and expanding on the entirety of the views expressed.

Take Care. Rus

[NotCranky]

Yes I had already decided that you are taking a pragmatic tone compared to my idealistic one.

Even WW2, the U.S. had ulterior motives. Western Europe was our market place. I think overall I won’t fight the “just war” concept that prevailed at the time and still does. I have no doubt that the behind the scenes bankers and businessmen alike were influencing policy and perhaps spin. We also never know if the U.S. would have gone to war with less high motives at the time. What we do know is that we went to war and it played out favorably for our position.

On nationalism or jingoism being part of your motivation for your beliefs, I don’t know and won’t venture to say.I doubt it.

“As far as going to war when a more credible alternative exists: Where you speaking of Iraq?”

No, I was being philosophical. I was really hinting that the U.S. might have used its power better towards avoiding a third world war type conflagration or a future clash of empires in any case.

Here is a second answer to the same question:

“As far as going to war when a more credible alternative exists: Where you speaking of Iraq?”

No, I was being philosophical.
Iraq might be a good case in point though.
The entire middle east for that matter, anything to do with oil. I believe this obligation to protect human rights issues come back up too. I just don’t really buy it as being very focal, regardless of how long sanctions and other “diplomatic” efforts were in effect.

“Diplomacy” = warfare without weapons.

Africa would be the region of interest for my criticism of US willingness to appease other less dominant but powerful nations, that coincidentally happen to be allies, or at least nations we have diplomatic relations with. How is a guy not supposed to be cynical about that?

I will look for any response . I have enjoyed this discussion. I’ll have to get with the program on the domestic front(no pun intended) and will have less time for serious discourse for a while.

My wife and I were discussing this exchange relative to how useful tasks could be created by an educator for his/her students.

One idea: Russ/Allan write a page on everything you learned from each other and include area of the discussion you would like to develop further.

Rus and Allan debate over. Allan you are the idealist,Rus you are the pragmatist for the sake of the exercise.

Or: write and essay incorporating and expanding on the entirety of the views expressed.

Take Care. Rus

[NotCranky]

Yes I had already decided that you are taking a pragmatic tone compared to my idealistic one.

Even WW2, the U.S. had ulterior motives. Western Europe was our market place. I think overall I won’t fight the “just war” concept that prevailed at the time and still does. I have no doubt that the behind the scenes bankers and businessmen alike were influencing policy and perhaps spin. We also never know if the U.S. would have gone to war with less high motives at the time. What we do know is that we went to war and it played out favorably for our position.

On nationalism or jingoism being part of your motivation for your beliefs, I don’t know and won’t venture to say.I doubt it.

“As far as going to war when a more credible alternative exists: Where you speaking of Iraq?”

No, I was being philosophical. I was really hinting that the U.S. might have used its power better towards avoiding a third world war type conflagration or a future clash of empires in any case.

Here is a second answer to the same question:

“As far as going to war when a more credible alternative exists: Where you speaking of Iraq?”

No, I was being philosophical.
Iraq might be a good case in point though.
The entire middle east for that matter, anything to do with oil. I believe this obligation to protect human rights issues come back up too. I just don’t really buy it as being very focal, regardless of how long sanctions and other “diplomatic” efforts were in effect.

“Diplomacy” = warfare without weapons.

Africa would be the region of interest for my criticism of US willingness to appease other less dominant but powerful nations, that coincidentally happen to be allies, or at least nations we have diplomatic relations with. How is a guy not supposed to be cynical about that?

I will look for any response . I have enjoyed this discussion. I’ll have to get with the program on the domestic front(no pun intended) and will have less time for serious discourse for a while.

My wife and I were discussing this exchange relative to how useful tasks could be created by an educator for his/her students.

One idea: Russ/Allan write a page on everything you learned from each other and include area of the discussion you would like to develop further.

Rus and Allan debate over. Allan you are the idealist,Rus you are the pragmatist for the sake of the exercise.

Or: write and essay incorporating and expanding on the entirety of the views expressed.

Take Care. Rus

[NotCranky]

Yes I had already decided that you are taking a pragmatic tone compared to my idealistic one.

Even WW2, the U.S. had ulterior motives. Western Europe was our market place. I think overall I won’t fight the “just war” concept that prevailed at the time and still does. I have no doubt that the behind the scenes bankers and businessmen alike were influencing policy and perhaps spin. We also never know if the U.S. would have gone to war with less high motives at the time. What we do know is that we went to war and it played out favorably for our position.

On nationalism or jingoism being part of your motivation for your beliefs, I don’t know and won’t venture to say.I doubt it.

“As far as going to war when a more credible alternative exists: Where you speaking of Iraq?”

No, I was being philosophical. I was really hinting that the U.S. might have used its power better towards avoiding a third world war type conflagration or a future clash of empires in any case.

Here is a second answer to the same question:

“As far as going to war when a more credible alternative exists: Where you speaking of Iraq?”

No, I was being philosophical.
Iraq might be a good case in point though.
The entire middle east for that matter, anything to do with oil. I believe this obligation to protect human rights issues come back up too. I just don’t really buy it as being very focal, regardless of how long sanctions and other “diplomatic” efforts were in effect.

“Diplomacy” = warfare without weapons.

Africa would be the region of interest for my criticism of US willingness to appease other less dominant but powerful nations, that coincidentally happen to be allies, or at least nations we have diplomatic relations with. How is a guy not supposed to be cynical about that?

I will look for any response . I have enjoyed this discussion. I’ll have to get with the program on the domestic front(no pun intended) and will have less time for serious discourse for a while.

My wife and I were discussing this exchange relative to how useful tasks could be created by an educator for his/her students.

One idea: Russ/Allan write a page on everything you learned from each other and include area of the discussion you would like to develop further.

Rus and Allan debate over. Allan you are the idealist,Rus you are the pragmatist for the sake of the exercise.

Or: write and essay incorporating and expanding on the entirety of the views expressed.

Take Care. Rus

[Author]

Posts