On 4/4/2013 1:14 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 4/4/2013 11:25 AM, True North wrote:
On Thursday, 4 April 2013 11:51:24 UTC-3, Hank© wrote:
On 4/4/2013 10:42 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:

On 4/4/2013 10:35 AM, Hank� wrote:

On 4/4/2013 10:27 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:

On 4/4/2013 10:13 AM, J Herring wrote:

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 09:33:29 -0400, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:



On 4/4/13 9:08 AM, J Herring wrote:

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 08:51:45 -0400, "F.O.A.D."

wrote:



On 4/4/13 8:42 AM, J Herring wrote:

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 08:15:38 -0400, "F.O.A.D."

wrote:



On 4/4/13 8:12 AM, J Herring wrote:

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:19:15 -0400, "F.O.A.D."


wrote:



On 4/3/13 6:06 PM, Eisboch wrote:





"J Herring" wrote in message

...



On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:31:58 -0400, Hank�

wrote:







I'd keep pressing him until he gives you a thoughtful
answer,

right or

wrong.



He backed himself into a corner. He'd have to admit that his

thumb

safety is unused, and therefore

useless.



----------------------------------------



John, correct me if I am wrong but I am under the

understanding that

you do all your live round gun handling at a shooting range.

You do not

have a permit for concealed carry. Is that correct?



The reason I ask is because I think it depends on what
you are

doing

with regard to a safety. At the range a thumb safety
isn't

used much

in the normal protocol of shooting but if you carry, it may

be.



Some people carry with the safety off. Some with it on.

Some with a

round in the chamber, some with the chamber empty.
Me? The

few times

I carry, I have a full clip inserted, but the chamber is
empty

and the

thumb safety is "on". People will disagree, but I feel
it is

safer that

way, for me and for others. If I ever had to use it, the

time it would

take to snap the safety off and rack the slide would be a

matter of a

second or two.









I've carried outside of the house with a round in the pipe
and

the

safety on. I've only done that a few times under special

circumstances.

When I do carry, typically, I have a mag inserted but I
haven't

yet

racked the slide, so there's no need to use the safety. I
have

a belt

carry holster so when I do carry, I have to wear a jacket to

keep the

firearm covered. It's a custom molded holster, and while it

holds the

weapon snugly, the trigger guard is completely free of the

holster. It's

not an expensive holster. I think it was about $75.



Ah, the story changes.





Salmonbait



--

'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand.





No, Herring, there was always more to it. Remember, I said I

would give

you "an" example. Perhaps your next hobby should be
enrolling in a

remedial reading course.



Bull****. Go read your essay.





Salmonbait



--

'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand.







Hehehe. I've become Herring's obsession. What a giggle.



Well, it's more like enthralled with your knowledge.



You've got us all wondering...earlier you said you never carry
with

a round in the chamber, now you

say you do so under 'special circumstances'. What would those be?





Salmonbait



--

'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand.







A good place to do so, if you have the right permit, would be in
the

parking lot at that Springfield Mall down the road from you a short

way,

in order to avoid being carjacked by the friendly MS-13
gangsters who

hang out there.



If there were more posters here, we could start up a "guessing

pool" as

to your next obsessive hobby. Does crocheting interest you?
Could it?



Nope, been there many, many times with only my car keys for
protection.



You referred to 'special circumstances', not me. What were those

special circumstances that required

you to chamber a round?





Salmonbait



--

'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand.





There are a lot of people out there that literally hate harry
krause...

I am sure "special circumstances" are any time he loads his
wheelchair

into the van...



Hate is such a strong word.



Don't forget the "literally"....



http://theoatmeal.com/comics/literally


Why, that's a very useful site.
Think I'll send this poster to Lil' Snottie in South Windsor.
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/misspelling


You would be better to clean your yard... pig...

When you come upon a Donnie thread with gobs of extra lines, please trim
the post to what you are responding to. At least until Donnie learns to
operate his appliance.

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 02:32:37 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:17:21 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 20:48:10 -0400, wrote:

So the range, without underlying infrastructre and related cost, per
year is, let's say in the middle... $32B. That of course, won't help
the Social Security situation if it were funneled to it. Is that what
you're claiming? Nice try.

When you read what they are trying to include in the "oil subsidy"
like keeping the shipping lanes are open you understand we would be
spending that money anyway.
The real subsidies are going to wind and solar and they are direct
payments or tax credits

So, you're claiming that all the big oil subsidies and all the
infrastructure that supports that is somehow equal to the paltry sums
that are used to subsidize wind/solar, two technologies that don't
pollute nearly as much and are completely renewable.

The problem with these "oil subsidies" is that the detractors are
calling a lot of things a subsidy that are clearly not. "Defending
shipping lanes"? Get real.

Feel free to identify those costs that are specificially targeted
toward big oil. Those can be eliminated??

When you look at the subsidies for wind and solar you also need to
look at how much electricity is actually being produced per subsidy
dollar. That is when the numbers really start to soar.

No, that's not necessarily correct. When oil first came around, not
much in the way of electricity was being generated. It takes a while.
Are you disputing that wind/solar can cover a lot of our energy needs?
If so, try doing some research.

The actual solar panel is not producing pollution but the process of
making them is very dirty, labor intensive and expensive. We don't see
a lot of that because they are polluting China to build most of them
with cheap Chinese labor.

Depends on the technology being used. Is oil dirty? What's the cost of
producing it.... oh yeah, the Gulf oil spill.

There is an interesting article in this month's Scientific American
(Apr 2013) about the EROI on the tar sands. It says the tar sands are
not really that efficient because of all of the processing costs but
when you actually look at these "costs" it is mostly "jobs" for people
in North America. I can see why Canada is pushing it. They also
stretch this cost thing to the limit, even including roads, food and
the schools for the worker's kids in the price of the oil.
At a certain point, isn't that the definition of an economy?

Canadian jobs? Not much in the way of US jobs. Is it worth the spill
and pollution potential? No. How long will it take? Years.

For electricity generation
The EROI on solar PV is second to last, only having nuclear being
worse.
Best is hydro but you can't build a dam in this country. We are
blowing them up.

The numbers are
Hydro 40+
Wind 20
Coal 18
Nat gas 7
Solar 6
Nukes 5

We get 160 times as much power from gas and 290 times as much from
coal as we do solar. Wind is about 10x solar.

Looking at liquid fuels
It really gets ugly when you look at corn ethanol. They set an
arbitrary EROI of 5-9 "required for the basic functions of an
industrial society" and ethanol comes in at 1.4, far behind heavy oil
from California at 4.

They seem to like sugar cane ethanol (9) but they ignore the
ecological cost of that. The Brazilians are filling wet lands and
burning the rain forest to grow sugar. That has a worse effect on
carbon than just about anything man does and it destroys ecosystems
that exist nowhere else on earth.
In the US we really do not have that many places where sugar will grow
and most of them are environmentally sensitive (like the Everglades or
the bayou where most of our sugar comes from)

Blah, blah... stats that don't mean anything. We're talking about
billions in subsidies to oil companies that don't need them. nice try.

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 06:23:40 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

On 4/4/2013 2:00 AM, wrote:


So, you're claiming that all the big oil subsidies and all the
infrastructure that supports that is somehow equal to the paltry sums
that are used to subsidize wind/solar, two technologies that don't
pollute nearly as much and are completely renewable.

Complete bull****... Solar pollutes way more than fraking. Look at
China, near the manufacturing plants.

You are an ignoramus. And, I'm being generous. I used a big word.

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 02:53:42 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 21:51:02 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

Complete bull****. Stop listening to fox.

http://open.salon.com/blog/sickofstu..._you_t o_know


This article says exactly what I have been saying all along

" Loaning money to the federal government is a very bad idea, as the
only money the federal government has comes from the taxpayers. When
the government borrows money from the taxpayers, the only way they
have to pay our money back to us is to get even more money from us.
We, essentially, pay ourselves back. The federal government can only
raise money by raising our taxes or by borrowing money, which requires
the taxpayers to pay back the amount of the loan, plus interest.
Either way, the taxpayer will still be paying for their Social
Security benefits twice over or more as a result of loaning money to
the federal government."

They start out saying this is not a Ponzi and then prove it is.

No they don't. They said it's a trust fund. Look up the word trust and
the phrase "full faith and credit".


The only defense they have for saying it isn't is that we knew what we
were getting into when we did it so it can't be a fraud.

Nope. Never said.

They also act like all of the baby boomers paid over a quarter of a
million into the system, based on what a kid today will pay at the
current rate. I have my statement from SAA. I paid them a tad over
$100k (both sides 50k/50k), paying the max, every year I worked
(66-96) and nobody paid a dime more than that in those years. I will
get all of that back in less than 5 years of collecting. I have half
already. That number is actually a bit worse for me because I have to
pay taxes on my SS so it will really be more like 6-7 years to clear
that much.

Actuarially I am supposed to live to 79-80, I will have been
collecting for 16 years by then at over 20,000 a year.

How is that sustainable?

BTW I really got a kick out of their way to "fix" it.
Two of the 4 suggestions are simply higher taxes.

The other two are basically to privatize it, get rid of the trust fund
and invest in equities.
Where have we heard that before?

Your buddy Bush. Next question.

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:20:45 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:52:12 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 02:32:37 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:17:21 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 20:48:10 -0400, wrote:

So the range, without underlying infrastructre and related cost, per
year is, let's say in the middle... $32B. That of course, won't help
the Social Security situation if it were funneled to it. Is that what
you're claiming? Nice try.

When you read what they are trying to include in the "oil subsidy"
like keeping the shipping lanes are open you understand we would be
spending that money anyway.
The real subsidies are going to wind and solar and they are direct
payments or tax credits

So, you're claiming that all the big oil subsidies and all the
infrastructure that supports that is somehow equal to the paltry sums
that are used to subsidize wind/solar, two technologies that don't
pollute nearly as much and are completely renewable.

The problem with these "oil subsidies" is that the detractors are
calling a lot of things a subsidy that are clearly not. "Defending
shipping lanes"? Get real.

Feel free to identify those costs that are specificially targeted
toward big oil. Those can be eliminated??

So you think the US would allow terrorists to close a major shipping
lane important to the US if there was no oil?

Huh? What does this have to do with subsidies to big oil?


When you look at the subsidies for wind and solar you also need to
look at how much electricity is actually being produced per subsidy
dollar. That is when the numbers really start to soar.

No, that's not necessarily correct. When oil first came around, not
much in the way of electricity was being generated. It takes a while.
Are you disputing that wind/solar can cover a lot of our energy needs?
If so, try doing some research.

Solar only works in the day and wind only works when and where the
wind is blowing. We need power 24x7 so you still need a 24x7
infrastructure. The only thing you are saving is fuel cost.

Clearly, you know very little about the technology or how it would be
used. Being deliberately stupid again?


There is an interesting article in this month's Scientific American
(Apr 2013) about the EROI on the tar sands. It says the tar sands are
not really that efficient because of all of the processing costs but
when you actually look at these "costs" it is mostly "jobs" for people
in North America. I can see why Canada is pushing it. They also
stretch this cost thing to the limit, even including roads, food and
the schools for the worker's kids in the price of the oil.
At a certain point, isn't that the definition of an economy?

Canadian jobs? Not much in the way of US jobs. Is it worth the spill
and pollution potential? No. How long will it take? Years.


The Keystone will create some jobs and the refineries in the South
will have a lot of jobs.

Untrue. Citation please and don't quote a big oil funded think tank.


How come nobody talks about how long it will take to build a renewable
energy system?

I thought such a think couldn't work because solar only works during
the day and wind only when it blows? Oh yeah, you're just bsing again.

For electricity generation
The EROI on solar PV is second to last, only having nuclear being
worse.
Best is hydro but you can't build a dam in this country. We are
blowing them up.

The numbers are
Hydro 40+
Wind 20
Coal 18
Nat gas 7
Solar 6
Nukes 5

We get 160 times as much power from gas and 290 times as much from
coal as we do solar. Wind is about 10x solar.

Looking at liquid fuels
It really gets ugly when you look at corn ethanol. They set an
arbitrary EROI of 5-9 "required for the basic functions of an
industrial society" and ethanol comes in at 1.4, far behind heavy oil
from California at 4.

They seem to like sugar cane ethanol (9) but they ignore the
ecological cost of that. The Brazilians are filling wet lands and
burning the rain forest to grow sugar. That has a worse effect on
carbon than just about anything man does and it destroys ecosystems
that exist nowhere else on earth.
In the US we really do not have that many places where sugar will grow
and most of them are environmentally sensitive (like the Everglades or
the bayou where most of our sugar comes from)

Blah, blah... stats that don't mean anything. We're talking about
billions in subsidies to oil companies that don't need them. nice try.

I am in favor of dropping ALL of the energy subsidies but that would
be the end of the renewables.
Oil and gas still get a tiny part of it

http://www.instituteforenergyresearc...-Subsidies.png

Thus, you didn't read what I wrote. Oil got subsidies in the
beginning, as should wind/solar. Oil doesn't need it any more.

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:52:45 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:58:56 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 02:53:42 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 21:51:02 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

Complete bull****. Stop listening to fox.

http://open.salon.com/blog/sickofstu..._you_t o_know


This article says exactly what I have been saying all along

" Loaning money to the federal government is a very bad idea, as the
only money the federal government has comes from the taxpayers. When
the government borrows money from the taxpayers, the only way they
have to pay our money back to us is to get even more money from us.
We, essentially, pay ourselves back. The federal government can only
raise money by raising our taxes or by borrowing money, which requires
the taxpayers to pay back the amount of the loan, plus interest.
Either way, the taxpayer will still be paying for their Social
Security benefits twice over or more as a result of loaning money to
the federal government."

They start out saying this is not a Ponzi and then prove it is.

No they don't. They said it's a trust fund. Look up the word trust and
the phrase "full faith and credit".

They say
"Social Security lacks the secrecy and the element of fraud."

The "secret" SSA conceals is spelled out a few paragraphs later when
they say

" Loaning money to the federal government is a very bad idea, as the
only money the federal government has comes from the taxpayers."
That makes it a ponzi by their definition.

" A pyramid scheme takes the funds paid by investors and distributes
it amongst the people who invested before them."

... and that is exactly how SS works. They take money from OASDI tax
and immediately distribute it to the recipients.
There is no investment component, only an unfunded obligation to pay
when payments exceed income, which it does now.

They say
"The federal government can only
raise money by raising our taxes or by borrowing money, which requires
the taxpayers to pay back the amount of the loan, plus interest."

I couldn't have said it better myself.



The only defense they have for saying it isn't is that we knew what we
were getting into when we did it so it can't be a fraud.

Nope. Never said.

See above

They also act like all of the baby boomers paid over a quarter of a
million into the system, based on what a kid today will pay at the
current rate. I have my statement from SAA. I paid them a tad over
$100k (both sides 50k/50k), paying the max, every year I worked
(66-96) and nobody paid a dime more than that in those years. I will
get all of that back in less than 5 years of collecting. I have half
already. That number is actually a bit worse for me because I have to
pay taxes on my SS so it will really be more like 6-7 years to clear
that much.

Actuarially I am supposed to live to 79-80, I will have been
collecting for 16 years by then at over 20,000 a year.

How is that sustainable?

BTW I really got a kick out of their way to "fix" it.
Two of the 4 suggestions are simply higher taxes.

The other two are basically to privatize it, get rid of the trust fund
and invest in equities.
Where have we heard that before?

Your buddy Bush. Next question.

Echoed by the article YOU cite.

Why do you and Kevin keep linking articles that confirm what I say?


Who the **** is kevin??

Well, for all your negative statements about Social Security, you're
sure not doing much about it. You're pocketing the money instead of
sending it back. Why aren't you doing that? Oh yeah, you're a
hypocrite.

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:20:14 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 13:39:22 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:20:45 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:52:12 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 02:32:37 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:17:21 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 20:48:10 -0400, wrote:

So the range, without underlying infrastructre and related cost, per
year is, let's say in the middle... $32B. That of course, won't help
the Social Security situation if it were funneled to it. Is that what
you're claiming? Nice try.

When you read what they are trying to include in the "oil subsidy"
like keeping the shipping lanes are open you understand we would be
spending that money anyway.
The real subsidies are going to wind and solar and they are direct
payments or tax credits

So, you're claiming that all the big oil subsidies and all the
infrastructure that supports that is somehow equal to the paltry sums
that are used to subsidize wind/solar, two technologies that don't
pollute nearly as much and are completely renewable.

The problem with these "oil subsidies" is that the detractors are
calling a lot of things a subsidy that are clearly not. "Defending
shipping lanes"? Get real.

Feel free to identify those costs that are specificially targeted
toward big oil. Those can be eliminated??

So you think the US would allow terrorists to close a major shipping
lane important to the US if there was no oil?

Huh? What does this have to do with subsidies to big oil?

It has everything to do with it when people start expanding the scope
of an oil subsidy out to the pentagon budget.

Ok. So, where do YOU think it should end? Why shouldn't part of the
subsidy that includes pentagon expenses be a factor? Don't they count
for something? Wouldn't the price to the pentagon be less if we
weren't being charged more than we needed to be?


When you look at the subsidies for wind and solar you also need to
look at how much electricity is actually being produced per subsidy
dollar. That is when the numbers really start to soar.

No, that's not necessarily correct. When oil first came around, not
much in the way of electricity was being generated. It takes a while.
Are you disputing that wind/solar can cover a lot of our energy needs?
If so, try doing some research.

Solar only works in the day and wind only works when and where the
wind is blowing. We need power 24x7 so you still need a 24x7
infrastructure. The only thing you are saving is fuel cost.

Clearly, you know very little about the technology or how it would be
used. Being deliberately stupid again?

Do you know of a solar panel that works at night or a wind turbine
that works when the wing isn't blowing? Nobody has a working storage
scheme for power on the grid scale. They even abandoned the idea of
storage in residential systems if the grid is available.

Germany is such a failure. And, they have so much sunshine.

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

Do you seriously believe that our energy use can't be significantly
enhanced and our oil consumption reduced by wind/solar????


There is an interesting article in this month's Scientific American
(Apr 2013) about the EROI on the tar sands. It says the tar sands are
not really that efficient because of all of the processing costs but
when you actually look at these "costs" it is mostly "jobs" for people
in North America. I can see why Canada is pushing it. They also
stretch this cost thing to the limit, even including roads, food and
the schools for the worker's kids in the price of the oil.
At a certain point, isn't that the definition of an economy?

Canadian jobs? Not much in the way of US jobs. Is it worth the spill
and pollution potential? No. How long will it take? Years.


The Keystone will create some jobs and the refineries in the South
will have a lot of jobs.

Untrue. Citation please and don't quote a big oil funded think tank.

That pipeline is going to build itself? Those refineries are run by
robots? The oil ports where we will be exporting this oil will not
have any longshoremen?
OK.

And, when it's done being build? What refineries? We already have the
refineries. How many more do we need? How long will it take to get
everything running? Years. Longshoreman? Union workers? Oh ****!
How many more are required to have oil piped onto ships?


How come nobody talks about how long it will take to build a renewable
energy system?

I thought such a think couldn't work because solar only works during
the day and wind only when it blows? Oh yeah, you're just bsing again.

Which has nothing to do with what I said. You are talking about how
long it will take to get Canadian oil online and I asked how long it
will take to get any significant amount of wind and solar online.

How long will it take to get Canadian oil online? Can't answer the
question? The answer is years.


http://www.gizmag.com/us-solar-produ...icture/123000/
http://ycharts.com/indicators/us_sol...rgy_production
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/w...d_capacity.asp


For electricity generation
The EROI on solar PV is second to last, only having nuclear being
worse.
Best is hydro but you can't build a dam in this country. We are
blowing them up.

The numbers are
Hydro 40+
Wind 20
Coal 18
Nat gas 7
Solar 6
Nukes 5

We get 160 times as much power from gas and 290 times as much from
coal as we do solar. Wind is about 10x solar.

Looking at liquid fuels
It really gets ugly when you look at corn ethanol. They set an
arbitrary EROI of 5-9 "required for the basic functions of an
industrial society" and ethanol comes in at 1.4, far behind heavy oil
from California at 4.

They seem to like sugar cane ethanol (9) but they ignore the
ecological cost of that. The Brazilians are filling wet lands and
burning the rain forest to grow sugar. That has a worse effect on
carbon than just about anything man does and it destroys ecosystems
that exist nowhere else on earth.
In the US we really do not have that many places where sugar will grow
and most of them are environmentally sensitive (like the Everglades or
the bayou where most of our sugar comes from)

Blah, blah... stats that don't mean anything. We're talking about
billions in subsidies to oil companies that don't need them. nice try.

I am in favor of dropping ALL of the energy subsidies but that would
be the end of the renewables.
Oil and gas still get a tiny part of it

http://www.instituteforenergyresearc...-Subsidies.png

Thus, you didn't read what I wrote. Oil got subsidies in the
beginning, as should wind/solar. Oil doesn't need it any more.

I read what you wrote, you said oil was getting massive subsidies.

I would be OK with cutting them out totally. That still does not mean
the Iranians should be able to shut down the straights of Hormuz.

Huh? Iran the boogie man? Sort of like McCain's bomb, bomb, bomb iran
only catchyier

The reality is, subsidies had nothing to do with the development of
oil in the beginning. Rockefeller and Carnegie did just fine without
the government.

Nope. Read up:
http://news.yahoo.com/history-u-oil-...215500548.html

Most of the subsidies came about to make US developed oil more
competitive with middle east oil. The Nixon, Ford and Carter
administration were the driving force behind this after we had the
supply troubles in the 70s.
They traded direction subsidies on new production for tougher rules
that virtually eliminated the old oil depletion allowance as they knew
it. (Ford)

What the **** does this have to do with removing them? Nothing. You're
just blowing the same smoke.

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:54:52 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 14:53:55 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:54:54 -0400, wrote:

You can't argue with the facts so you throw out another juvenile
insult. I can see why your last name is Asshole.

The "facts" are made up nonsense from someone who's using a made up
anecdote. I can see why you can't figure out my name. Here in English:

You're an Asshole.

... and that is your name? OK Mr Asshole

Ok Mr. ****head. Is that your name? It's certainly your bull****.

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 08:58:27 -0400, Hank©
wrote:

On 4/3/2013 10:28 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 18:06:38 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

The few
times I carry, I have a full clip inserted, but the chamber is empty

===

Unless you are doing law enforcement work I think that's a good
strategy. I'd argue that without a round in the chamber, you don't
even need the safety.


It's like having a pitbull with a muzzle.

====

We've already got a pitbull or two running around here, now we need
the muzzle.

On Mar 29, 11:54*am, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
Why we can't have good things (continued)

http://tinyurl.com/ckot44q

Half of Christians Think Jesus Will Return Within 40 Years
Christian views in America on the return of Christ.

I don't really think 50% of all Christians take credence in that
statement, and I'm not sure He'll return in the next 40 or not, But
I do believe He shall return.

But I have plenty of good things, and not all are materialistic
either. I'm satisfied.