Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
>>>whatever happened to authentic conversation in this country.<<<
How do you have authentic conversation when 1/3 of the population make up their own facts? 33% of americans (and we know who they are) still think (as of Sept. 11-12, 2007) Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11. This after Bush himself has said........how many times now (?) that SH had nothing to do with it?
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
>>>all the far right nut case apologist on this board are here to do one thing and one thing only and that is too muddy the waters until the theft is completed.....<<<
With that I think you give them undeserved credit for some kind of strategy. There's no strategy behind their rants except maybe to convince the communists here who don't respect Bush's freedom fight that unless victory is achieved in Iraq, american churches will soon be replaced by mosques and the constitution replaced by the koran.
They really do believe that random islamic thugs have the capacity to invade, occupy and transform america. The fact that the Bush administration has managed to convince 30% of the population of this folly should be good enough for Zeev to approve use of the N-word as it relates to their amazing propaganda apparatus during WW2. Same exact tactics are used today with the same results.
>>>don't know why they don't ask those questions<<<
Of course you don't but I can tell you: Because they're false choices as it relates to the Iraq war. The GWOT won't be won or lost in Iraq. And there's also no winning the Iraq war since US troops have essentially been reduced to mediators and/or segregators between two parties that have hated each other for 1200 years.
>>>but maybe, just maybe the regime in Iran is destroyed before your vote......hope is eternal<<<
So here you are......pretending to support US military forces that are losing 100 soldiers a month against a country that doesn't have armed forces.....period. Then you take another breath and hope for war with Iran. We're tapped out in Iraq with 150,000 troops.....correct?
Iran Military Strength
Available Military Manpower: 18,319,545
Total Military Personnel: 11,770,000
Active Frontline Personnel: 420,000
Aircraft: 954
Armor: 2,380
Artillery: 4,594
Missile Defense: 1,760
Infantry Support Systems: 12,500
Naval Units: 65
Merchant Marines: 143
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country_detail.asp?country_id=25
Troops have a special place in their hearts for supporters like you hap.....scared shitless armchair warriors who'll point the military to the next suicide mission so their all american comfort can be maintained. Those I've talked to only have one request though.......that you show up more often and convey your recommendations face to face. They have opinions too you know...
If you ever build up the courage to go, be sure to bring someone to drive you back home.
>>>Fox will fall on it's own weight in time<<<
Maybe Olbermann will too unless he takes his gig to the next level. I don't watch him every night but whenever I do he:
1. Has a tabloid segment which usually concentrates on Britney Spears.
2. Only invites guests who agree with him (Rush Limbaugh's format).
Gets a little boring to listen to people who agree on everything for a full hour. Plus.....credibility goes to hell when nothing's ever challenged. What political show ever survived that mixed tabloid trash with 60 minutes of liberal monopoly?
Ted Olsen replacing Gonzo?
"WASHINGTON, Sept. 11 — The White House is closing in on a nominee to replace Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, with former Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson considered one of the leading candidates, administration and Congressional officials said Tuesday.
Reports of Mr. Olson’s candidacy suggested that President Bush, in choosing the third attorney general of his presidency, might defy calls from Democrats and choose another Republican who is considered a staunch partisan to lead the Justice Department. Mr. Gonzales is departing after being repeatedly accused of allowing political loyalties to blind him to independently enforcing the law.
If nominated, Mr. Olson would be expected to face tough questioning from Democrats, especially over his role representing the Bush campaign in the Supreme Court case that decided the 2000 presidential election, as well as his involvement in partisan attacks during the 1990s on President Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Mr. Olson never denied being a leading figure in the anti-Clinton campaign, but there has been a dispute over his ties to a venture sponsored by the American Spectator magazine known as the Arkansas Project that sought damaging information about the Clintons."
http://www.nytimes.com:80/2007/09/12/washington/12justice.html?th&emc=th
Smart choice mr. president. That'll put an end to politics in the justice dept.
>>>Keep on parroting the meme that he said the US isn't safer.<<<
It's his job to say that but it didn't come out with a lot of ease and conviction did it? Do you think we're safer? If yes........why?
>>>I mean, if I were accused of being a liar, like Ted Olsen essentially has, I'd be shoving my phone bill and proof of timely payment in your face.<<<
First time I remember ever siding with Ted Olsen on anything. Considering the overall veracity of those who accuse him of lying about his wife getting wiped out on 9/11 I wouldn't waste time on producing phone records either.
>>>I guess it's too hard to connect the dots. You replied to a post that said Kurdistan was safe<<<
I did.......with reference to the deadliest attack since the war began which killed 500 Kurdish speaking people in an area apparently under the jurisdiction of a Kurdish health minister. How do you connect your dots to conclude that this doesn't qualify as a "Kurdish area" which is what eddy referred to?
>>>What about the Kurdish areas?? They have been booming since they were liberated and the area is safe.<<<
Less than a month ago:
Up To 500 Killed In War's Deadliest Attack
The victims of Tuesday night's coordinated attack by four suicide bombers were Yazidis, a small Kurdish-speaking sect that has been targeted by Muslim extremists who consider its members to be blasphemers.
Zayan Othman, health minister for Iraq's nearby autonomous Kurdish region, said 250 bodies had been pulled from the rubble and some 350 people were injured.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/15/iraq/main3168487.shtml
>>>last winter's buildup in U.S. troops had met its military objectives "in large measure.<<<
And those military objectives were what? Correct me if I'm adrift here but wasn't the idea to calm things down enough where the current government would have a chance to establish political order which everyone agree is the ONLY long term solution? That obviously didn't happen so what objectives were met "in large measure"? Relative peace in Anbar? Doesn't seem like a good proxy since the Shiite/Sunni mix is not representative of the rest of Iraq and much of the progress was the result of bribery and horse trading.
"Unlike in other areas, the Marines had an opportunity to cut deals with the sheikhs here in part because of the relative homogeneity of the Sunni-dominated province. In more mixed areas, the "Anbar model" may not work."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0905/p01s01-wome.htm
>>>I guess you forgot about this piece of Democratic trash talk<<<
Ok.....so he doesn't like to call it a war but does he recognize a threat? Sounds like he does: ("We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological purposes," Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery.
Point is that Bush republicans label anyone who disagrees with Bush's Iraq policy a hopeless pacifist who won't even acknowledge that terrorism is a threat. So let me rephrase it then. I don't know of anyone who doesn't acknowledge the threat of terrorism and the fact that it needs to be addressed agressively. But maybe it IS a mistake to call it a war since apparently a fair amount of 1 billion islamic followers around the globe feel they're at the recieving end of this war or soon will be.
Former CIA Analyst Says New Video Shows West Is Losing Fight Against Al Qaeda, Warns Of New Threat
Scheuer spent years tracking al Qaeda as the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit.
What he is trying to say is that he is under no pressure from the Americans. The Americans are failing in their effort to kill him, and in their effort to destroy al Qaeda."
"The war is motivated on the enemy's side by the impact of our policies," he said. "It's not about democracy. It's not about women's rights. It's not about freedom or elections. It has everything to do with the impact of our foreign policy in the Muslim world. It's not to say that our policy is wrong, it's simply to try to understand the motivation of your enemy."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/08/terror/main3244193.shtml
>>>But the surge has worked.<<<
Violence has been unrelenting in Iraq and the suicide bombing in Baghdad was among a series of attacks tempering U.S. claims of success in taming the capital just days before a pivotal progress report is due to be delivered to the U.S. Congress by the top commander in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker.
Petraeus acknowledged the difficulties in a letter to U.S. forces on Friday summarizing the results of the troop increase U.S. President George W. Bush ordered last winter.
"It has not worked out as we had hoped," he wrote, offering a preview of what he planned to tell U.S. legislators in hearings that begin Monday amid a fierce debate over whether President Bush should begin withdrawing troops from Iraq.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/08/iraq/main3244330.shtml
>>>It's hard to win a war, when so much of your country doesn't even acknowledge there's a war.<<<
Actually what you just said is republican trash talk which creates a lot of the division you're so bothered by. Bush supporters - in their infinite wisdom - equal lack of support for Bush and his Iraq fiasco with lack of support for the w.o.t. I don't know of anyone who doesn't acknowledge there's a war going on but I know plenty who acknowledge the war is fought using all the wrong tactics. You can't see the difference?
>>>the surge has worked.<<<
>>>Is Amy's UA 175 picture any more illogical than the official story of a 767 disappearing through a 16 to 20 foot wide hole,<<<
That picture is illogical for a lot of reasons. One of them being that the publisher herself can't even explain what it's supposed to tell us and the rest of the reasons being videos - lots of them - showing her frozen airplane continuing through the building.
>>>Pursuing the Pentagon weak link will solve the towers
mystery!<<<
Sam........how do you rationally dismiss all the eyewitnesses to AA 77? There are hundreds of these:
"Northern Virginia resident John O'Keefe was one of the commuters who witnessed the attack on the Pentagon. 'I was going up 395, up Washington Blvd., listening to the the news, to WTOP, and from my left side-I don't know whether I saw or heard it first- I saw a silver plane I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet,' said the 25-year-old O'Keefe, managing editor of Influence, an American Lawyer Media publication about lobbying. 'It came swooping in over the highway, over my left shoulder, straight across where my car was heading. I'd just heard them saying on the radio that National Airport was closing, and I thought, "That's not going to make it to National Airport." And then I realized where I was, and that it was going to hit the Pentagon. There was a burst of orange flame that shot out that I could see through the highway overpass. Then it was just black. Just black, thick smoke.'"
- "Terrorist 'Situation'." American Lawyer Media, 11 Sep 2001
"USAToday.com Editor Joel Sucherman saw it all: an American Airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted to work Tuesday morning. It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet off the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two seconds later and before he could see if the landing gear was down or any of the horror-struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away. 'My first thought was he's not going to make it across the river to [Reagan] National Airport. But whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction,' Sucherman said. 'It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angleâalmost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target and staying dead on course.'"
- "Journalist Witnesses Pentagon Crash." eWeek.com, 13 Sep 2001
"I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11. From my office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, Va., I have a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National Airport and the Potomac River. ... Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke."
- Steve Anderson, Director of Communications, USA Today
http://www.oilempire.us/eyewitnesses.html
>>>And of course it's all Bush's fault<<<
and yours....
>>>A socialized health system though collects taxes from people according to ability and passes benefits to people according to need. Hmm, actually, that sounds like communism<<<
Which is how every existing government program works. Taxes are collected from those able to work, own a house and earn a paycheck and benefits are passed on according to need.
>>>Both of you, in my opinion, post quality information worth consideration.<<<
Just asking now........how do you consider Amy's signature of UA 175, frozen 1/10th of a second before impact with a "the magic show! building heals itself, no crash physics" quality information worth consideration? What are you considering?
>>>If you have money to buy take out pizza once a week, you could spend it on Health Insurance.<<<
Good slogan at a GOP townhall meeting but not for much else. Problem with that argument is that a lot of the uninsured could stop eating altogether and still couldn't afford private health insurance.
>>>The Victim Mentality of many Americans is the reason we have become weak and are the laughing stock of the planet<<<
That would work too at the GOP gathering. Outside of course people understand that we're the laughing stock because we keep making the same mistakes over and over and keep bragging about it. Like misguided wars that leave us broke and hated and misguided elections of a loser the rest of the world spotted instantly but took americans 6 years to properly evaluate.
>>>Police and fire protection are not socialized<<<
I see. Collecting tax dollars for the purpose of protecting structures from burning down and for maintaining order in general is not socialism but collecting tax dollars for the purpose of saving lives and fixing broken citizens is. Same old story: Conservatives like socialism - a lot - as long as it's something that makes them feel more secure. Military.....the more the better. Police and fire rescue.....same thing. Social security .....gotta beef it up. Healthcare.......every man for himself.
>>>That's a real sane reason to turn over 12% of the economy to the US Government.<<<
No it isn't and if that's all you come away with after everything we've covered then you're either insincere or unusually dense. But then.......I can't say I wasn't warned when you pretty much made it clear that using taxpayer money to save a house that's been struck by lightning is more legitimate than using taxpayer money to save a human american citizen who's been struck by lightning.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=22614917
>>>I dont understand your logic........Lets take a guy who drinks a fifth of whiskey every night and smokes 2 packs a day and has done so for 30 years. Where in the Constitution does it say it is now the Governments problem? (Our problem)<<<
I don't understand your logic either. Applying it to the chain smoking drunk you mentioned, you have no problem with him getting government supplied fire rescue after he passes out with one of his cigarettes and puts his house on fire but a model citizen who gets run over by a bus better have private insurance or deserves to be destroyed.
>>>If and when they mandate social medicine, they will also mandate personal behavior.<<<
Nonsense. Ask any foreigner who's part of a national health care system if they're forced to do anything in order to receive care and you'll have your answer. Maybe you're confusing mandates with suggestions which we already have here.
President Bush Highlights Health and Fitness Initiative
Listen, we're here to talk about a health care plan that makes a lot of sense. And it's a health care plan that says if you exercise and eat healthy food, you will live longer.
And what works is to encourage people to exercise on a regular basis, and to eat good foods. It's called preventative medicine. An integral part of any health care plan is to encourage people to adopt the habits necessary to avoid disease in the first place.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030718-6.html
>>>Socialized Medicine will make your body property of the State. They will determine what is a "legitimate" treatment and what is not. Your choices in treatment will be limited. You will be told what you can eat and what activities you can participate in. Basically they will hold a gun to your head and demand that if you dont do X, Y, and Z you will go to the back of the line.<<<
You're grossly misinformed as anyone who's actually participating in "socialized medicine" will tell you.
>>>Comparing Law enforcement to health care is a bogus argument.<<<
Not if you view it through a wider lens. The role of law enforcement is to help maintain a civilized society which if you think about it becomes a role of the health care system too. Is a society where 50% of all personal bankruptcies are due to medical bills civilized? People who get wiped out financially especially through no fault of their own also get wiped out mentally. A couple of weeks ago a man who owed hospitals close to $1/2 million over his sick wife threw her off the balcony from the seventh floor.
Financial ruin creates desperate people and a society littered with desperate people is neither civilized nor smart imo.
>>>Law enforcement and fire protection are not free...You ever heard of taxes.<<<
You wanna play games or have a discussion? Isn't "free" a figure of speech when it comes to no-cost to the user government programs?
>>>Law enforcement and Fire protection are legitimate forms of Government.<<<
What makes putting out a fire or arresting a drunk more legitimate than saving the life of a stroke victim?
>>>Telling you what you can and cannot eat and drink and forcing you to go to a doctor are not.<<<
Might that come from the same propaganda department that Bush & Cheney has hired for war on terror productions? Sounds familiar in both style and substance.
>>>Government has proven, over and over again, it doesnt know when to stop. When enough is enough.<<<
That's nothing new and it hasn't stopped anti government types from supporting bigger government. In fact........the group of people who protest the loudest over national health care (Bush supporters) are the same ones who have celebrated the largest expansion of government in recent history.
Seems like socialized anything is ok as long as a high ranking conservative says it's a good idea. No republican ever complained about socialized police, socialized border control, socialized fire rescue or socialized homeland security. Which suggests that services they don't want to fail them should be run by government. I.E......they think everyone should be entitled to free law enforcement if they feel threatened and to free fire rescue if their house is on fire but if you're struck by lightning you should be prepared to lose everything you have and spend the rest of your life in a red cross shelter.
>>>Socialized medicine is/will be a nightmare. Property of the State. They will have a cap on coverage as well...When you hit the cap, they pull the plug.<<<
Where do you get this from? I talk to people all the time with actual and current experience of "socialized medicine". Canadians, Brits, Swedes, Germans....I could go on. I've never ever heard of anything like the horrors described by americans who oppose the system. Instead all these socialists seem happy with what they have and they get even happier when they compare it to our mess.
Be honest now. Is a health care system that routinely forces entire families out of their homes and into personal bankruptcy something to be protective and proud about? It's totally unacceptable in the rest of the civilized world so I'm trying to figure out why we think it's ok for decent americans to have their lives destroyed by the misfortune of having an accident or a heart attack.
>>>you have easymoney in the wrong category,...
easymoney has passion !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FOOL,...Websters Dictionary: Definition; a person lacking in judgment or prudence<<<
Thanks for keeping me straight. I obviously short changed her by calling her a regular fool instead of a passionate fool. She's after all someone who insists that live television and 40 independent videos of AA 11 and United 175 crashing into the twin towers are illusions......clever visual effects that only visionaries like herself seem to understand.
BTW.......she also doesn't do questions.......only lectures, insults and weird links. What's passionate about someone who refuses to discuss the very subject she's supposedly passionate about?
This is why you come across as a fool. Much of your life seems occupied by promoting the 9/11 conspiracy movement and yet you don't have the faintest idea of how to make this movement credible. Instead of trying to attract a larger following by engaging in honest debate and answering simple questions you avoid all debate and duck all questions. What a ridiculous waste of time.
One last chance. This is not hard:
Re: the magic show! building heals itself, no crash physics
How do you know it has entered the building as opposed to being a split second away from entering? There's plenty of video taken from various angles showing the impact and the destruction.
>>>the magic show! building heals itself, no crash physics<<<
Same question again: How do you know that picture wasn't captured a split second prior to impact rather than post impact?
Pause this just before impact and you'll see exactly what's in your picture, less some photoshop work maybe.
Perfect demonstration of how 9/11 truth seekers operate. All questions about your twilight zone theories are ignored but you always find time to trash non-believers over petty nonsense. Zeev has become almost synonymous with Ihub to me since I've spent most of my Ihub time on his boards and you use that to question my credibility.
There were plenty of issues in my post you could have addressed constructively but that would have been too uncomfortable so you try to eliminate a spoiler by crapping on his character instead. Which elevates you to the same scum status as most politicians does it not?
>>>if they sold you the story on the TV about a plane and we find that the crash and the plane images were faked<<<
If the crash was faked, then what did 40 independent video cameras capture and how was the crash faked simultaneously - live - by a TV news helicopter camera crew?
"The image of the crash was caught on video from over 40 vantage points, including live-feed from a helicopter camera broadcast on live television. It was continually replayed in news broadcasts over the next few days."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175
>>>the FAA DATA claims that the plane was in service and it just was cancelled in 05 and not distroyed<<<
Doesn't say a word about the plane being in service until 2005. Only says that United Airlines in 2005 surrendered the US aircraft registration "N612UA".
>>>what conclusion should you make? or do you think for yourself?<<<
What's important about thinking for yourself anymore? You think for yourself and look what your brainwaves produce.
You believe that a plane crash that was captured by 40 independent video cameras, thousands of eyewitnesses and a live newscast TV camera didn't happen at all but was "faked" and you mock anyone who's not open minded enough to see what you see and think what you think.
And since you believe that, you also have to believe that United 175 somehow disappeared from ATC radar screens across North America and then secretly flew on and landed somewhere else where passengers and crew deplaned and became forever sworn to secrecy about the plot.
Then the airplane, N612UA, began a new life with the same registration as before the crash even though the whole idea behind the plot was to convince the world that this particular airplane had been destroyed.
What's your thoughts here as you think for yourself? The government, including the FAA and the NTSB forgot that N612UA was supposed to have crashed as of 9/11/2001 and finally corrected it on 09/28/2005?
One more question? Last time I checked there were 3 or 4 boards on Zeev's devoted entirely to 9/11 stuff. Any idea why there's so little interest in those boards that all the "truth seekers" are forced to pollute boards like this with their hysterics?
>>>"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction"
remember newtons 3rd law of motion.<<<
And how do you apply that to United # 175?
Was a pretty simple question. Wanna try again?
Bogus in terms of what? No planes crashing the towers or different planes?
>>>the plane story is bogus.<<<
Bogus in terms of what? No planes crashing the towers or different planes?
>>>other 2 were dereged in 02. get the picture?<<<
What's the implication?
>>>To me it looks like there is no hole in the building where the jet has clearly entered.<<<
How do you know it has clearly entered as opposed to being a split second away from entering? There's plenty of video taken from various angles showing the impact.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/day.video.09.html#11th
Why are you guys discussing stuff like this? There are plenty of legitimate questions about that day but this isn't one of them imo.
Could you elaborate a little on this:
>>>the magic show! building heals itself, no crash physics<<<
What exactly are you trying to convey?
>>>and you dismiss everything, all pretty much summarily with either straw-man arguments or pure baloney.<<<
Or by putting people who interfere with his games on ignore.
>>>I actually credit Bush with strong leadership skills for helping the nation overcome the climate of fear.<<<
lol......priceless. With soothing words like these for the past 6 years: