This is a placeholder text
Group text
by raymond on 23 January 2010 - 02:01
It is clearly obvious you are not up to speed on the building codes and the type of steel used in the wtc !So tell us what caused the wtc # 3 blding to collapse since it was subjected to very little fire and not planes! I hope that you beetree are not so uneducated to believe they fell as a result of fire and chance???? Aside from the documented fact of thermite explosive residue being found all over the area I suppose I am wasting my breath?? Yep I thought so!
by rainforestscouts on 23 January 2010 - 03:01
Raymond,
Wasn't it just last year that a tanker wrecked on a bridge in the SF area. The news reports that I read/heard stated that the bridge melted and collapsed.
Ulli,
I've never heard a credible source make the claim that Saddam had any connection with 9-11, so kindly remove that feather from your cap. You alluded to the fact that Congress did in fact authorize military action against Iraq. There is no required language in the Constitution for a declaration of war. For that reason alone the war was not illegal. As for its morality, if you choose to believe it was a war for profit, how could you ever be convinced? But at least be willing to be objective about the fact that Saddam could have made it all go away by cooperating with a few provisions of UN resolution 1441. Also be fair about the manage a trois that was suspected between Osama, Saddam, and the asprin factory that Clinton leveled back in his term. You remember, the Sudanese asprin factory that was suspected of manufacturing VX nerve gas for Osama while trading with Saddam under the food for oil program.
What ever happened to DR?
RFS
Wasn't it just last year that a tanker wrecked on a bridge in the SF area. The news reports that I read/heard stated that the bridge melted and collapsed.
Ulli,
I've never heard a credible source make the claim that Saddam had any connection with 9-11, so kindly remove that feather from your cap. You alluded to the fact that Congress did in fact authorize military action against Iraq. There is no required language in the Constitution for a declaration of war. For that reason alone the war was not illegal. As for its morality, if you choose to believe it was a war for profit, how could you ever be convinced? But at least be willing to be objective about the fact that Saddam could have made it all go away by cooperating with a few provisions of UN resolution 1441. Also be fair about the manage a trois that was suspected between Osama, Saddam, and the asprin factory that Clinton leveled back in his term. You remember, the Sudanese asprin factory that was suspected of manufacturing VX nerve gas for Osama while trading with Saddam under the food for oil program.
What ever happened to DR?
RFS
by CrysBuck25 on 23 January 2010 - 05:01
Trace, you're right...The democrats took control of Congress in 2006, not 2004. Sorry. It was late last night when I posted that, and I was wrong...I'd just been on the phone talking with someone earlier that day and we were talking about politics.
As for the "spin" factor and the party line "You lost, we won" stuff, I don't buy it. In all seriousness, I lean toward the conservative view, I don't believe in gay marriage, gun control, or abortion. I believe that I have a right to own property, provided I earn enough money to pay for it, and that I shouldn't lose most of my income in taxes to pay for the poor. I believe that the US Government needs to keep its collective nose in its own backyard, and leave the governing of the states to the states.
However, it is a fact that regardless of party associations, all politicians, without exception, are corrupt. There are varying degrees of corruption, but it is present in every last one of them. Their seats are bought with corporate money and special interest groups' funding, and they answer to those who pay to get them elected. They care not what the people feel about hot button issues. If a politician takes a stand against gay marriage, then you can almost bet he's being supported by church associations, and if he supports it, he is almost surely being paid by gay associations. The same goes for gun rights versus gun control. Is the NRA paying his way, or the other side?
If you want to know what a politician stands for, just see who's contributed the most to his campaign, and you'll see where he stands.
I am neither "Republican" or "Democrat". The only difference between the two is who pays their way. I tend, as I stated above, to be strongly conservative, because I believe in the Second Amendment, the family unit, etc, and the Republican party tends to be more likely to attempt to protect the rights established by the Constitution, more so than the Democrats, in my admittedly limited experience.
That said, I think it is definitely time to go back to basics, get rid of the "Representatives" that we have right now. Those losers in DC will never think about what they are doing until they are reminded that they answer to us, not the other way around. They are so busy voting themselves raises and figuring out how they can steal more money from the unsuspecting people that are beginning to hate their guts.
As for the "spin" factor and the party line "You lost, we won" stuff, I don't buy it. In all seriousness, I lean toward the conservative view, I don't believe in gay marriage, gun control, or abortion. I believe that I have a right to own property, provided I earn enough money to pay for it, and that I shouldn't lose most of my income in taxes to pay for the poor. I believe that the US Government needs to keep its collective nose in its own backyard, and leave the governing of the states to the states.
However, it is a fact that regardless of party associations, all politicians, without exception, are corrupt. There are varying degrees of corruption, but it is present in every last one of them. Their seats are bought with corporate money and special interest groups' funding, and they answer to those who pay to get them elected. They care not what the people feel about hot button issues. If a politician takes a stand against gay marriage, then you can almost bet he's being supported by church associations, and if he supports it, he is almost surely being paid by gay associations. The same goes for gun rights versus gun control. Is the NRA paying his way, or the other side?
If you want to know what a politician stands for, just see who's contributed the most to his campaign, and you'll see where he stands.
I am neither "Republican" or "Democrat". The only difference between the two is who pays their way. I tend, as I stated above, to be strongly conservative, because I believe in the Second Amendment, the family unit, etc, and the Republican party tends to be more likely to attempt to protect the rights established by the Constitution, more so than the Democrats, in my admittedly limited experience.
That said, I think it is definitely time to go back to basics, get rid of the "Representatives" that we have right now. Those losers in DC will never think about what they are doing until they are reminded that they answer to us, not the other way around. They are so busy voting themselves raises and figuring out how they can steal more money from the unsuspecting people that are beginning to hate their guts.
As for having to maintain and even increase spending to maintain Bush's unsustainable spending in order to prevent collapse, I think you're wrong. It's time to let these corporate fools pay the price for their apathy. Let them all fail. Let them go bankrupt. If they can't run a business, then it should fail and be remade by someone that can keep it afloat. Yes, it might hurt the economy in the short term, but in the long run the country will emerge far stronger. If failure is no longer rewarded, it will stop. After all, you can't suck your company dry of money and then expect the government to keep it afloat for you, while you continue to drain resources. Again, I could give suggestions, but no one takes such radical ideas seriously. So I'll close with , LET THEM FAIL, IF THEY WILL NOT FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE IT WORK. CUT TAXES, CUT SPENDING. LESS GOVERNMENT, NOT MORE. MORE IS JUST A WASTE OF RESOURCES.
Crys
by Oskar1 on 23 January 2010 - 09:01
RFS , you are right, still his name was always mentioned by GWB when he talked about 9-11, implementing into the peopel, oh, we dont know yet, but he might have something to do with it anyway . Repeat that over & over again and the mases will believe it. It is what it is, just one piece in this theatre. Correct me if i'm wrong, but my impression was that Bush did need the authorization and approval of Congress to start this war. Which he obtained by presenting falsified intelligence. That's quite easy to research.
Correct me again, but this war was clearly against international law, Saddam never declared war on the US, nor had he weapons of mass destruction, further more, it was very well know by western intelligence that he did not have the resources to start a war with the US. Also easy to research.
Maggie, call me old fashioned, but Mr. Bugliosi, did serve his country as a District Attorny for a very long time, that is something that he should be respected for. You dont need to like what he does in his spare time, but you should respect a lifetime of work in puplic service.
Amen - keep on ranting, I will adapt to what Keith said earlier :
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck !
I'm done, thanks for keeping it halfway decent.
Ulli
Correct me again, but this war was clearly against international law, Saddam never declared war on the US, nor had he weapons of mass destruction, further more, it was very well know by western intelligence that he did not have the resources to start a war with the US. Also easy to research.
Maggie, call me old fashioned, but Mr. Bugliosi, did serve his country as a District Attorny for a very long time, that is something that he should be respected for. You dont need to like what he does in his spare time, but you should respect a lifetime of work in puplic service.
Amen - keep on ranting, I will adapt to what Keith said earlier :
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck !
I'm done, thanks for keeping it halfway decent.
Ulli
by raymond on 23 January 2010 - 14:01
by rainforestscouts on 23 January 2010 - 03:01
rainforestscouts
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 03:04 am
Raymond,
Wasn't it just last year that a tanker wrecked on a bridge in the SF area. The news reports that I read/heard stated that the bridge melted and collapsed.
Now your statement is dangerous ground to tread on! I surely hope you do not want to compare the circumstances behind the bridge collapse and the WTC collapse? Were there not two different types of fuel? Can we compare apples to apples or are you trying to inject confusion?
rainforestscouts
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 03:04 am
Raymond,
Wasn't it just last year that a tanker wrecked on a bridge in the SF area. The news reports that I read/heard stated that the bridge melted and collapsed.
Now your statement is dangerous ground to tread on! I surely hope you do not want to compare the circumstances behind the bridge collapse and the WTC collapse? Were there not two different types of fuel? Can we compare apples to apples or are you trying to inject confusion?
by beetree on 23 January 2010 - 14:01
You waste so much breath sometimes I wonder how your brain functions at all. Sorry, you don't get it especially when we all saw those buildings fall. And while I get real bored with all the nuts and bolts of some subjects, my DH on the other hand is quite up to snuff with metallurgy in manufacturing. So are the engineers and Metallurgy consultants he works with and converses with on this subject. I'll take their experience over yours, Ray-Ray any day.
by MaggieMae on 23 January 2010 - 15:01
Ulli said --
Maggie, call me old fashioned, but Mr. Bugliosi, did serve his country as a District Attorny for a very long time, that is something that he should be respected for. You dont need to like what he does in his spare time, but you should respect a lifetime of work in puplic service.
--------------------------
I, too, worked 30+ years in Public Service (the Federal Government) ....and? Maybe, I'll write a book....will you believe everything that I say in my book? "NO", you will say !!?? I didn't think so.....................
Maggie, call me old fashioned, but Mr. Bugliosi, did serve his country as a District Attorny for a very long time, that is something that he should be respected for. You dont need to like what he does in his spare time, but you should respect a lifetime of work in puplic service.
--------------------------
I, too, worked 30+ years in Public Service (the Federal Government) ....and? Maybe, I'll write a book....will you believe everything that I say in my book? "NO", you will say !!?? I didn't think so.....................
by rainforestscouts on 23 January 2010 - 15:01
Raymond,
Forget it!
Ulli,
I don't know whether it's the language barrier or your committment to your belief that Bush is evil, but you are wrong. Bush did not present "falsified" evidence to Congress. He presented what turned out to be unprovable evidence. Many people still believe that he may have shuttled weapons to Syria. Bush did not "link" Saddam with 9-11. He made a case that if Saddam was producing the types of weapons that had capabilities of causing mass casualties, he may well pass them off to terrorist types to use against American troops and/or civilians. Bill Clinton and many other democrats made the case, going back as far as 1998, that Saddam had WMDs. Again, all Saddam had to do was to comply with UN resolution 1441. Have a nice day
RFS
Forget it!
Ulli,
I don't know whether it's the language barrier or your committment to your belief that Bush is evil, but you are wrong. Bush did not present "falsified" evidence to Congress. He presented what turned out to be unprovable evidence. Many people still believe that he may have shuttled weapons to Syria. Bush did not "link" Saddam with 9-11. He made a case that if Saddam was producing the types of weapons that had capabilities of causing mass casualties, he may well pass them off to terrorist types to use against American troops and/or civilians. Bill Clinton and many other democrats made the case, going back as far as 1998, that Saddam had WMDs. Again, all Saddam had to do was to comply with UN resolution 1441. Have a nice day
RFS
by MaggieMae on 23 January 2010 - 15:01
RFS-- your rebuttal, unfortunately, will fall on "deaf ears." Pres. Bush said that "we" (the U.S.) will go after the Terrorists, including any Countries who Harbor them and Aid them. I NEVER heard him say that Iraq was directly involved in 9-11. Saddam had ignored 17 specific United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding his weapons inspections programs.
by Oskar1 on 23 January 2010 - 18:01
RFS,
with all due respect, Maggie I will not argue with you anymore, Just go and see what was said by highest ranking officials of the US. They did not want Irak to comply with the resulotions, pressing on a time frame to comply, that no induvidual country would have agreed to. That was like : "If you dont do that tomorrow, you are guilty of breach". Give me a freaking break, what was the hurry ? Even the UN was reluctant to agree to the timeplan the USA had set. A independent country refused to bend in, I hope we can agree on that. Makes it veasible for the USA to invate that country ? It was a deception of a scale the world has never seen before. After all, these supposed WMD's were never found, neither a programm that would make a half way normal person think of a Atomic programm. So now , here we are, alll your arguments are shredded, what are we going to do with it ? Pretending that we acted in "good belief ?" and be done with it, excapting that each single day more innocent die, not only peopel from Irak but your own fellows ? Yup, you can say, they will sloughter themsels anyway, but I truely belief the USA should not be part of it. One more thing RFS, yup you are right by saying Bush did not link Saddam to WMD's, just check out when he said that, and it will open your eyes. He did it after he invated Irak, Cant believe you get that all messed up. It happens, dont worry about it.
Saddam never harbourd Osama, matter of fact, he was not even keen of the guy. No proof whatsoever that Saddam trained Terrorists. But yet, it is tried to twist the truth.
Just one thing, it only adds up, about the programm of WMD's proclaimed by Powell in his speach before the UN, turned out to be the, sorry here kicks the language barrier in, "Doctors works", for a student to obtain his Doctors title. And the MIS and CIA didnt know of it, sure, only the German Intelligance warned them about it, that this was totally wrong.
Either way, I have just one question for you : What would you expect if a person of your community was murderd ? Would you not expect that this is investigated to the fullest ? Am I also wrong here ? But yet again, no, you rather find it to be ok, to let everything be as it is, just because "what cant be, cannot be " ! And that at a cost of over 100 000 lives lost ??
I really should not continue, but I still would like to thank the peopel that stayed focused.
Ulli
with all due respect, Maggie I will not argue with you anymore, Just go and see what was said by highest ranking officials of the US. They did not want Irak to comply with the resulotions, pressing on a time frame to comply, that no induvidual country would have agreed to. That was like : "If you dont do that tomorrow, you are guilty of breach". Give me a freaking break, what was the hurry ? Even the UN was reluctant to agree to the timeplan the USA had set. A independent country refused to bend in, I hope we can agree on that. Makes it veasible for the USA to invate that country ? It was a deception of a scale the world has never seen before. After all, these supposed WMD's were never found, neither a programm that would make a half way normal person think of a Atomic programm. So now , here we are, alll your arguments are shredded, what are we going to do with it ? Pretending that we acted in "good belief ?" and be done with it, excapting that each single day more innocent die, not only peopel from Irak but your own fellows ? Yup, you can say, they will sloughter themsels anyway, but I truely belief the USA should not be part of it. One more thing RFS, yup you are right by saying Bush did not link Saddam to WMD's, just check out when he said that, and it will open your eyes. He did it after he invated Irak, Cant believe you get that all messed up. It happens, dont worry about it.
Saddam never harbourd Osama, matter of fact, he was not even keen of the guy. No proof whatsoever that Saddam trained Terrorists. But yet, it is tried to twist the truth.
Just one thing, it only adds up, about the programm of WMD's proclaimed by Powell in his speach before the UN, turned out to be the, sorry here kicks the language barrier in, "Doctors works", for a student to obtain his Doctors title. And the MIS and CIA didnt know of it, sure, only the German Intelligance warned them about it, that this was totally wrong.
Either way, I have just one question for you : What would you expect if a person of your community was murderd ? Would you not expect that this is investigated to the fullest ? Am I also wrong here ? But yet again, no, you rather find it to be ok, to let everything be as it is, just because "what cant be, cannot be " ! And that at a cost of over 100 000 lives lost ??
I really should not continue, but I still would like to thank the peopel that stayed focused.
Ulli
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top