Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jdocop

  1. Considering that the country has a total population around 4-4 1/2 million, and considering that the standard of living is so much better than all of its neighbors, and considering that CR is a veritable paradise, one should be able to conclude that one will not find very many Costa Ricans living outside the boundaries of their beautiful little country.
  2. my, my, my.....all the original poster asked was whether or not anyone has any information about Cockfights in CR.....they did not ask for any discussion, argument, or opinion. So, I would think that the polite thing to do would have been to simply ignore the post, and leave it for anybody who might be able answer the question to respond. O, sean, portense bien, niños.....
  3. I would just like to wish everyone a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year! No strings attached.
  4. Nansie, this is NOT a rumor. Read the articles for yourself at A. M. Costa Rica.com, or in recent issues of the Tico Times. But, to be as sure as anything in CR can be, why don't you contact your builder?
  5. I doubt that it could be lucrative, but it certainly could be interesting......you may not be able to see it in the little avatar/.gif, but that IS a Bavaria Oro that yours truly is constantly tipping, and obviously enjoying!
  6. They did not need to walk out in protest, but I understand why some did. He could easily have avoided that faux paus of mixing church and state, by leaving out two lines, leaving us with this message, instead: We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery. We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare. We have killed our unborn and called it choice. We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable. We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self-esteem. We have abused power and called it politics. We have stolen our neighbor's Possessions and called it Ambition! We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of speech and expression. We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment. I totally accept what he said, but a government proceeding was not the proper forum for it. Meanwhile, why don't you tell us who Joe Wright is, and put his words into context for us? I mean, was this the opening prayer, and is he the chaplain of the state legislature? Was this simply a speech from the floor?
  7. Sorry, Newman. Did you actually refer me to Nixon's autobiography as a source of the truth? Talk about an oxymoron! Nixon and truth in the same breath? No way! Auto - biography? Uh Uh! Yes, indeed, Churchhill was right, but you are forgetting one thing regarding history and violent events: who writes the history of a war?
  8. Now why in the world would they expect to find anything to do with Chappaquiddick and John Dean's wife in the offices of a political party? You don't suppose it was just like I said, do you? As your buddy's dad would say, read my lips: "The break-in at Watergate was political; Republicans looking for whatever they could use against the Democrats. Politics as usual! As for me, I was fresh out of the Army in 1969 (Uncle Sam let me go in mid-November of 1968, and I was pretty much in a daze all of 1969 - newlywed, new job, with lots of overtime, and a general lack of interest in what was going on politically), and I do not believe your holy deterrence was the reason Khrushchev backed down. I believe that it was one man standing up, and Khrushchev's belief in what that one man (the likes of whom we haven't seen lately) had to say, that caused him to back down. Deterrence is not what overcame Stalin (time and mother nature did for him, thank you very much), and it certainly did nothing to Brezhnev. What you forget about these people is that they were basically bullies, just like Dubya is, and they didn't have the stomach for any real resistance, anyway.
  9. RE: the last three posts: TG, an even bigger problem with our method of choosing a President is that no individual will step forward who possesses “intelligence, is also honest, ethical, a statesman, and possesses all the other traits of a true leader,” because it has become an accepted fact of life that no one can run for National office without money, and how many folks out there possess those attributes [which we agree would be desirable in a President] at the same time that they also have enough money of their own [that they are willing to throw away on a political campaign], along with the desire to actually be President? crhomebuilder, just how do we know, for a fact, that the “Middle Eastern Fundamentalist Regimes” are actually actively engaged in “complet[ing] their nuclear weapons shopping list?” We have no real human intelligence to support such a statement. All we have is Bush’s word, and frankly, I, for one, don’t have much faith in that man’s word. What troubles me about this particular issue is this: Who are we to deny the opportunity to pursue any sort of nuclear power program to anyone in the world? I mean, what give us the right to do this? We got ours! Why can’t they get theirs? newman, I haven’t heard that word for some time: “DETERRENCE!” (your capital letters, there). What is deterrence, and what makes you think it was ever of any real use? How about plain old fashioned common sense? (on the part of other world leaders). As for Watergate, what do you mean, the burglars didn’t know WHY they were burglarizing? Politics. Republican politics! Hello?
  10. Newman, Newman, Newman....say it isn't so, Newman!.....how could you inflict Tricky Dick on us? How the hell would an even bigger crook than the ones we have now be of any help? I will agree with you that it would be nice to have a leader who would reach out to other world leaders, but not Nixon, please! Wasn't he a politician, too? What we need is a real person, not someone who wants to be there, but some poor sap, who would go in kicking and screaming, "No! Not me! I don't want to go!" and who would then be able to go in, clean things up, and get the hell out as soon as the job is done! (definitely, NOT any sort of politician).....
  11. Kenn, for a college prof, your understanding of the reasons behind the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, is unfortunately shallow. The Japanese rationale for starting a war when and where they did, are as old as Japan itself, and as clear as their history and their geography dictate. They are a small island nation (gee, not unlike England, another small and aggressive nation), entirely dependent on outside material for just about everything that they do. Yes, oil had a lot to do with their decision, but it goes much deeper than that, as any student of history can tell you. Your example of a parent whose two kids are at each other is wholly inadequate, and totally out of place in this discussion. Who the hell are we to declare any two other nations to be in a child/parent relationship to us? And, exactly what war did we become involved in that had to do with one aggressor picking on another, and us stepping in to stop the two from killing each other? Our only justification for entering WWII was to respond to the attack on Pearl Harbor, and had nothing to do with any moral obligation that we may have had. If you truly believe that the attack on the Twin Towers was not an attack on YOU, how the hell can you justify our war in Afghanistan? If you had lost a loved one on 09/11, I suspect you would feel differently. I personally do NOT believe we had or have any business in Afghanistan, since we still have not seen hide nor hair of the purported attacker, Osama Bin Laden. What good have we accomplished over there? We made it possible for their opium production to rise dramatically? I sure as hell feel no pride in that accomplisment! Why can people not equate 09/11 with 12/07? If you ask me, it was worse than Pearl Harbor, because this was an attack on the U. S. Mainland, directed at people who were totally innocent, and certainly not part of,....what did you call it? Oh, yeah, the "US-based global capitalism--the World Trade Center--and US militarism--the Pentagon." I agree with you totally when you say (in re, Sept. 11, 2001) that we could have kept the world's sympathy if our country had followed a different course in the wake of those tragic events, but we lost that sympathy with our entrance into Afghanistan, not our aggression into Iraq. Neither of those actions was justified, and now we're in so deep, that nobody has the guts to simply say, "Enough, already. Let's get the hell out!" Ultimately, your concluding statement is simply convoluted, where you said: "Don't you dare equate December 7th with September 11th. It's always messy in the real world, but the US was right after December 7th. It has been horribly wrong after September 11th. I wish to God they were the same morally, but they simply are not". The actual events on those two separate dates were tragic, and were similar - cowardly attacks on an unsuspecting victim. It was in the aftermath of those events, and in the actions that this country (the entire country was part of this) chose to take, that the similarities diverged. We had good leadership with the first, and poor leadership with the second. And, worse, we still lack decent leadership six years in the future! Hell, think about it! WWII (our active part in it, at least) lasted from December, 1941, to August, 1945. How is this possible?
  12. Yeah, if you hadn't mentioned it, most of us would prolly not have noticed. (Sorry, I saw the opportunity to throw in a 'prolly,' and just couldn't resist)!
  13. I have a few comments for you, Tom, based on what you wrote: You said: From what I have been told, on December 7, 1941, World War II started at 7:53 am and by 9:55 am it was all over. • 2,403 people lay dead • 188 airplanes destroyed • 8 battleships destroyed or damaged. • Dozens of ships sunk or damaged And, I ask: What do you mean, “from what [you] have been told?” Are you saying that you disbelieve this data? And, how can you say that “World War II started at 7:53 am and by 9:55 am it was all over?” That war did not end until August of 1945, Tom, and for some, it lasted even longer than that! Then, you said: 3 hours later, Japan attacked American facilities in the Philippines and spent the entire day devastating as many US assets as possible. Two and a half years later, who do you think instrumented the attack on Hong Kong, Malaysia and Thailand? Politicians organized the allied forces, then D-Day was launched in France and in one single day, 10,300 people were killed. And, I would like to ask: So, what is your point? Do you really believe that it was politicians, and not soldiers, who orchestrated the major battles of the actual War? And, why do you lump together the two different events of “the attack on Hong Kong, Malaysia and Thailand” and D-Day, as if they were political acts? I mean, in one sense war might be construed as the ultimate political act, but so what? And, are you trying to say that the people who were originally attacked (i.e., The Allies) should not have made any resistance to those attacks that they suffered? That is not to mention this: how could you consider attacks in four different places, at four different times to be one? I mean, DDay was June 6, and, I don't believe there was ever an orchestrated single attack date for the widely separated (geographically) locations you cited (Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Thailand), nor did such attacks occur on June 6, 1944. And, then you said: If those who make the decision to begin a war, were obligated to physically fight in the war, the world would save many lives and a lot of money. And, I would like to say: I semi-understand what you are saying here, I think. But, I would have to say that this applies more to more recent history, perhaps beginning with Viet Nam, and American leaders, and coming forward to Bush and his cronies messy war. Yes, I’d love to see Cheney’s and Bush’s kids in the military, and in harm’s way, with the real grunts, but it ain’t gonna happen. Then, you said: In April of 1945 a small Japanese Island by the name of Okinawa was attacked by American Forces. Japanese forces numbered only 130,000 troops. And yet the USA lost: • 12,613 American lives • 32,000 wounded • 763 aircraft • 36 ships Three years and four months after December 7, 1941, the war was almost over. World War II cost: • 50 to 150 million human lives • 1000's more lives ruined as a result • Hundreds of billions of dollars How many millions or billions of dollars did the USA spend to rebuild following the Japanese attack? In Japan, how many millions or billions must have been spent restoring that country after the American Atomic Bomb exploded? These are humbling numbers. Entire countries wiped out and populations evaporated. I wonder which politicians decided this war made sense? My thoughts: How can you wonder? Haven’t you read history? The causes of this war are pretty well documented. And, you ended: Clearly the results of war are not worth the price. After all the wars, past and present, should we not ask, why and how are politicians able to continue to engage us in wars? Next time you are voting for the lesser of the evils, try to remember which politician is absolutely against war. And, I would point out to you that what you are proposing is just a bit far removed from reality. Your statements imply that politicians are the ones solely responsible for all of our wars, and then you urge us to “remember which politician is absolutely against war.” Obviously, what you are forgetting is that some wars are and have been justified by either the events that led up to them, or by what was learned in their aftermath. And, those wars (our own Revolutionary War, for example) were not necessarily started by politicians, but by popular consent. As for remembering which politician might be ‘absolutely’ anything, that is simply not possible, because by their very nature, politicians never let the common man (the electorate) know what they truly believe, now do they?
  14. Affordability is one thing. Having good enough credit to qualify for a mortgage in today's market is quite another.
  15. I second what Kahuna has to say. All I have seen from him is his point of view, to which, the last time I checked, we are all still entitled. Personally, I can only speak for myself, and the last place I would want to choose my way of life is from some kind of trade show. And, forgive me, just my humble opinion here, -------.
  16. Just like the old CB handles, huh? Believe it or not, even though I am one of the truly olde phartes, my online identity does NOT go back that far in time. It does, however go back to the early days of the internet, and BBs, and text-only browsing/emails. I had to come up with an identity back in 1992, with my first email account. At that time I was working as an investigator for a State Board of Medical Examiners (yes, it was Texas). That made me a "Doc Cop." My initials are J.D. So, I put the two together: who I was and what I was. J.D. oc Cop.............that's my story, and I'm sticking to it....
  17. Richard, you are correct. I cannot ignore her now blatant statement that charcoal briquets are more than half coal! I am sorry, but Alaskagirl, your efforts to "inform" people are more along the lines of mis-informing them. I will grant you that charcoal briquets have some coal in them, but the percentage is actually less than 5%! Even your 'wiki' reference gave it less than 20%! As for calling charcoal lighter fluid a "refined" diesel, I won't let you get away with that statement either. Actually, whatever accellerent one chooses is rather moot, since no one starts to actually cook until all of the accellerent has burned away, so what difference does that make, anyway? As for my "colloquialisms" slaying you....exactly what regional saying or use of a dialect did my post contain? Finally, you say tomahto, I say tomato....you are entirely correct about Texas and Texans.....we simply cannot equate roasting a haunch of Elk or Moose over the direct heat of an open fire, with a soft wood like pine, or fir, with barbecuing a rack of ribs (beef or pork) over the coals of a hardwood fire, preferably to one side of those coals, so as to use the benefits of indirect heat and to gather in the flavor of that hardwood smoke......sorry....let it stand, and move on.....I will, thankfully, over here to the side of the fire where there is heat, but less smoke, and where my meat won't become charred by your open flames......
  18. Tom, interesting post....but, I'm not sure I like the idea of equating patriotism with the value of the dollar. Economy/finance is one thing, but I don't think it should be linked to patriotism. I mean, I like to think that I am as patriotic as the next person. Hell, I'm a veteran! But, what does that have to do with the price of a cup of tea in China? (Or, a bowl of rice)? The dollar's rise or fall against other currencies has to have more to do with fiscal moves, albeit often with political motives, than with my loyalty to my country. I know I'm not saying this well, but while I accept your statement that being a patriotic American is like being between the dog and the hydrant, why should that have anything to do with money? I have long felt this way, because of my position - as a patriotic American - against Dubya and his war...........at first, one didn't dare say anything against him/his war for fear of being labelled a traitor, or worse.......now, it's like maybe people finally get it, but no one has the brass to stand up and say: "Why don't we just get the hell on out of the Middle East entirely, let them kill each other, and then let God sort it out?" Look at the latest developments in Pakistan, our supposed ally. Here we have been dumping how many trillions of dollars into that sorry place, and what happens? The government is powerless against the terrorists in their midst, and has been all along! So, stop the pouring of good money into that place, put it to use back home. Oh, Lord, don't get me started. "Somebody stop me!"
  19. TG, your efforts have not gone unnoticed! I, for one, saw improvements, and am grateful. Thank you for your hard work!
  20. Oh, give me a break! I still stand by my statement, as you should now clarify yours! Your statement has two elements that need clarification here: First of all, you said barbecuing, yes? Anyone who has spent any time cooking outdoors knows that there are two ways to cook outdoors: barbecuing or grilling. Most people make the mistake of referring to their grilling as barbecuing, and there is a big difference. Grilling is how most of us cook a steak, or pieces of chicken, or even burgers & hot dogs - high heat, short time. Barbecuing, on the other hand, takes lower heat, and a long time - up to 10-12 hours. You should know that the best barbecue chef achieves his/her best results with indirect heat, and smoke. Guess what? That tends to minimize any exposure to the carcinogens that might be present when high heat/metal grill/meat come together! Personally, I do not expose the meats that I cook to coal. Never have. Never will. If I choose to grill, I use mesquite charcoal, and I do not buy brand name mesquite charcoal. Hell, I live in Texas, and West Texas produces huge amounts of real mesquite charcoal, in plain brown bags! Now, your statement did not indicate the fact that commercial charcoal may contain a minute quantity of coal. What you actually said was that Americans actually use COAL as their heat source, not charcoal. There is a difference, and rather than haul out your lame 'wiki-esque' reference, please now have the courage of your convictions. Furthermore, please note that my statement only refered to charcoal, and your reference is specific to charcoal briquets. I would respectfully submit to you that there is a difference!
  21. I'm sorry, but I can't let that post stand. I certainly cannot speak for Alaska, but I can tell you this, from one of the world's great barbecue chefs (that would be little old moi): who in the name-of-all-that's-holy would use COAL???? or DIESEL for a barbecue????!!!! Personally, I use charcoal (either hickory or mesquite, depending on what I am cooking), and either plain old rubbing alcohol or commercial lighter fluid to start my fires. Coal? puuuuuleeeeeeze!!!!!!!!
  22. I'm sorry, I don't want to tick you off, but even if I agree with what you say, what does this topic have to do with living or retiring in CR? Don't you think it would fit better down below, in the "open" forum?
  23. Personally, I have no horse in this race, ------- But, I'll say this much. -------? And, then, please be so kind as to inform us what you have found about the original post after your investigation? ([sic]"We have found that when we investigate who sponsors these posting, it is usually other builders or developers in the Ojochal area who have had difficulty competing -------)." And, then, since you already told us in that statement that you "investigate" the "sponsors" of "these posting," -------? Inquiring minds, and all that, you know, old stick......????
  24. This lady is an ex-pat treasure.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.