|
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message ... I saw at least one press conference where a reporter asked where were the WMDs and Bush replied that the intelligence was wrong, there weren't any. But it was, IIRC, in late 2004 or early 2005 and I can't find a reference to that specific statement. Oh, A personal twist on what you saw. Perhaps something not out of context and documented. |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
|
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Leon wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message ... I saw at least one press conference where a reporter asked where were the WMDs and Bush replied that the intelligence was wrong, there weren't any. But it was, IIRC, in late 2004 or early 2005 and I can't find a reference to that specific statement. Oh, A personal twist on what you saw. Perhaps something not out of context and documented. I resent the implication that I'm incapable of hearing what someone said. And I notice you ignored my second paragraph. Enough - you're not going to admit Bush can't walk on water :-). -- It's turtles, all the way down |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:04:56 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Renata wrote: After almost 5 years and one Trillion dollars, the perpetrator of that act still runs around free, with virtually no interst by GWB. Renata On 26 Jan 2006 23:34:58 EST, Tim Daneliuk wrote: -snip- .... 9-11 Murders Take Place ... GWB: We will find and kill anyone who partipates or or supports terror. -snip- Why are you so absorbed by Osama? Yes, he needs to be taken out when/if found, but he is just one cockroach in an entire building full of them. Besides, the Left keeps telling us that the whole thing is *our* fault and that we brought it upon ourselves, so really, you can't blame Osama, right? It's called "beheading". He thinks that killing Osama will so disappoint the rest of the terrorists worldwide that they will simply lay their arms down and go home to milk their camel -- or something. You guys ever read the book of Daniel in the Bible? It puts an interesting twist on current events. The recent 'legitimazation' of Hamas may represent one of the shifts of power mentioned. Just a guess. Bill |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
wrote:
The thing that amazes me about this whole thing is the same people who think our government could cover up 2 rigged elections, countless murders and the "bombing" of the World Trade Towers think it is impossible that Saddam could hide a few truckloads of WMD. Or why wouldn't we just plant some? If the Bush administration is such a bunch of lying thugs wouldn't it have made sense if they had just avoided that pesky "missing WMD" problem and "found" a few stockpiles? A notion is often simple thing on it's surface but get's a little more interesting as you look a little closer. Joe Barta |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Charles Self wrote: "Jay Pique" wrote: I respect that he served. Sure you do. About as much as I respect you. Oh please, Charlie, you sound like thin-skinned, usenet newbie. I disagree with the whiny crap about the terrorists having already won, the war is totally worthless and the rest of the liberal crap that gets regurgitated. It'd be nice to think that we can all just get along, but that ain't reality. You disagree with the war? Fine. But leave the "we've changed our way of life and the terrorists have won" line of crap in the bottom of your 50 year old footlocker. This is America. We have a political system. People that have to make tough decisions get voted into office. GWB had valid reasons for going to war. JP |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Charles Self wrote: Don't let your pique bite your peak, Pique. Negative, sure. We're ****ing away lives and money at a ferocious rate. What's good about that? "****ing away".... that's exactly the type of talk that the Democrats always use. What does it mean? You make it sound like we're just lining up soldiers to be shot on a whim. We're in A WAR HERE CHARLIE. So what do you propose? Or do you just feel like sitting back and talking about how the terrorists have "already won" by "changing our way of life"? What have we changed? Defeatist? Only in that we've stupidly allowed the terrorists to dominate our thinking for several years now. Their avowed purpose is to destroy our way of life. They've come almighty close. "...destroy our way of life." How has it changed *your* life, Charlie? I work, pay bills, eat, etc... pretty much like I always did. Other than turning you into a Usenet Crusader with the Let's Bitch About Bush Party - what's changed in your world? You went to Marine boot camp in 1950, right? Certainly you must have known some people back then that were killed in WWII, or Korea, or Vietnam, right? Grumpy? Only when assholes get too much publicity. Like who? Old? And you won't be one day? Or aren't already? 35. Hope to get old one day. Hope not to be sitting around complaining about politics, etc... on newsgroup devoted to woodworking. Chow, twit. Yeah. See ya. JP ********************************************* He's been here longer. Respect him. |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Charles Self wrote:
"Jay Pique" wrote in message oups.com... Charles Self wrote: The terrorists have already won, anyway. Once we started changing our lives extensively in an effort to cope with the problems a lack of security caused, that was a win for dark side. I'm sure they're basking in the glory of victory, reaping the rewards, splitting the spoils....errr...something like that. You sound like a real pussy to me. Defeatist, negative, grumpy and old. But I could be wrong. Don't let your pique bite your peak, Pique. Negative, sure. We're ****ing away lives and money at a ferocious rate. We sure are. 50% + of the Federal budget goes to entitlement programs of one kind or another - far, far more than ever gets spent on defending the nation. I say let's fix the biggest fiscal problem first. Let's get rid of the do-gooding/mooching/I'm-an-irresponsible-person programs right away and fix the bloated government spending problem tomorrow. I'm with you. N.B. Last year, the GDP grew at something like 5-6% and Federal spending grew at over 8%. How long is that mismatch sustainable? What's good about that? Defeatist? Only in that we've stupidly allowed the terrorists to dominate our thinking for several years now. Their avowed purpose is to destroy our way of life. They've come almighty close. Really? What has substantively changed in your life (or come "almighty close") to actually changing. I challenge you to demonstrate a material and/or large change in how we live pre/post 9/11 except that the inept airport security is now inept AND slow. Hardly the end of civilization as we know it. Grumpy? Only when assholes get too much publicity. I agree. Kerry, Kennedy, Biden, Schumer, Obama, Clinton, Feinstein, Jackson, Sharpton, and Durbin get far, far more publicity than their feeble ideas deserve. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
I'm so glad I dont live in America.
|
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
So are we. Stay where you are.
"Connor Aston" wrote in message news:op.s34ti5fdqkab0d@vigor13... I'm so glad I dont live in America. |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Jay Pique wrote:
Charles Self wrote: "Jay Pique" wrote: I respect that he served. Sure you do. About as much as I respect you. Oh please, Charlie, you sound like thin-skinned, usenet newbie. I disagree with the whiny crap about the terrorists having already won, the war is totally worthless and the rest of the liberal crap that gets regurgitated. It'd be nice to think that we can all just get along, but that ain't reality. You disagree with the war? Fine. But leave the "we've changed our way of life and the terrorists have won" line of crap in the bottom of your 50 year old footlocker. This is America. We have a political system. People that have to make tough decisions get voted into office. GWB had valid reasons for going to war. So much for respect... er -- email not valid |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
"CW" wrote in message k.net... So are we. Stay where you are. "Connor Aston" wrote in message news:op.s34ti5fdqkab0d@vigor13... I'm so glad I dont live in America. A former Araqi General testified on Fox news that he witnessed two plane loads of WMD being flown from Bagdad to Damascus, Syria. Any one who doubts that Sadam had more than those known to have been used on his enenies has his head screwed on crooked. It is a disgrace that this thread continues. How stupid can some one be???? |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
"carl" wrote in message
... "CW" wrote in message k.net... So are we. Stay where you are. "Connor Aston" wrote in message news:op.s34ti5fdqkab0d@vigor13... I'm so glad I dont live in America. A former Araqi General testified on Fox news that he witnessed two plane loads of WMD being flown from Bagdad to Damascus, Syria. Any one who doubts that Sadam had more than those known to have been used on his enenies has his head screwed on crooked. It is a disgrace that this thread continues. How stupid can some one be???? He TESTIFIED on Fox News? Holy ****. Wow. That's impressive. |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
On 29 Jan 2006 01:44:54 EST, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Charles Self wrote: "Jay Pique" wrote in message oups.com... Charles Self wrote: ... snip Grumpy? Only when assholes get too much publicity. I agree. Kerry, Kennedy, Biden, Schumer, Obama, Clinton, Feinstein, Jackson, Sharpton, and Durbin get far, far more publicity than their feeble ideas deserve. You definitely have a point there. If you were to take someone who had been asleep the past 20 years, or from some isolated place and plopped them down in the US and let them watch the news for a few days, then asked them who's in charge, you'd probably get: They'd identify that Bush is president, but would probably identify Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Joseph Biden as the leaders in the senate that that they are in charge. Same in the house, Nancy Pelosi and crew would be identified as the leaders of the house. Very seldom do you see reports regarding what those in the majority in the house and senate are doing, the news is mostly focusing on the speeches and commentary from the minority party. +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Connor Aston wrote: I'm so glad I dont live in America. So are we. :q |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Tim wrote: "Really? What has substantively changed in your life (or
come "almighty close") to actually changing. I challenge you to demonstrate a material and/or large change in how we live pre/post 9/11..." To be fair, I think you'd have to consider gas prices at least, and how that affects the rest of the economy. When it went up over 200%, that caused no small number of dependent changes, and will continue to do so. H |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
"Charles Self" wrote in message
... "carl" wrote in message ... "CW" wrote in message k.net... So are we. Stay where you are. "Connor Aston" wrote in message news:op.s34ti5fdqkab0d@vigor13... I'm so glad I dont live in America. A former Araqi General testified on Fox news that he witnessed two plane loads of WMD being flown from Bagdad to Damascus, Syria. Any one who doubts that Sadam had more than those known to have been used on his enenies has his head screwed on crooked. It is a disgrace that this thread continues. How stupid can some one be???? He TESTIFIED on Fox News? Holy ****. Wow. That's impressive. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the various definitions of "testify". I guess in your world, it could only be true if it's reported on ABC News. todd |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
"hylourgos" wrote in message
ups.com... Tim wrote: "Really? What has substantively changed in your life (or come "almighty close") to actually changing. I challenge you to demonstrate a material and/or large change in how we live pre/post 9/11..." To be fair, I think you'd have to consider gas prices at least, and how that affects the rest of the economy. When it went up over 200%, that caused no small number of dependent changes, and will continue to do so. H It was bound to happen sooner or later whether 9/11 or the Iraq war happened or not. I'm just hoping it will be the catalyst to push us in the direction of lessening our dependence on getting oil from wackos. todd |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
hylourgos wrote:
Tim wrote: "Really? What has substantively changed in your life (or come "almighty close") to actually changing. I challenge you to demonstrate a material and/or large change in how we live pre/post 9/11..." To be fair, I think you'd have to consider gas prices at least, and how that affects the rest of the economy. When it went up over 200%, that caused no small number of dependent changes, and will continue to do so. H In the immediate timeframe gas has gone up. But that's like saying that bread cost more than it did in 1960. The only meaningful way to measure this is to examine the price of gasoline as a percentage of what the "average" houshold earns. Another way to look at it is in terms of how much gold it would take to buy a gallon of gas (what fraction of a troy oz). What you will discover, I believe, is that gas prices have remained relatively constant or even *declined* slightly when measured in terms of baseline economic indicators. Moreover, even the immediate-term rise in gas prices cannot entirely be attributed to the current unrest in the Middle East. Katrina compromised the refining capacity for oil in the US. There is already a reluctance by the oil companies to build more refining capacity and when Katrina hit, supply/demmand did its job. Those companies are reluctant, BTW, because they simply cannot win no matter what they do. If they build more capacity they get accused of fouling the "delicate planet on which we live." If they don't, they get accused of purposely constraining supply to make "obscene profits" (even though thei rprofits have risen in dollars, the *real* measures of economic success like return on investment have remainded fairly stable or even *declined* slightly). It's like the old joke that everyone wants to go to Heaven, but no one wants to die. Everyone want cheap gasoline, but no one wants the companies that provide it to prosper. Most important of all, though, is that even with the proximate spike in gas prices, the economy has just shrugged this off and grown at a very healthy non-inflationary rate, at least in the US. (Europe continues to pay the price for its addictions to socialism.) There are a variety of theories for this, but at least one investment newsletter I've seen suggests that when people have to pay more for gas, they have less discretionary income for other things and this keeps the core inflation rate low because demand for goods does not become overheated (Bob Brinker/Marketimer). The broader point is that the West does not live markedly differently before- and after 9/11. Terrorism as a method of making war was going on long before this. 9/11 just removed American illusions about how insulated we were from the problem and that we could no longer ignore it. All this fulmination about how we've lost all our civil liberties and that democracy is on the wane in the West is just partisan gas-passing by the popular political Left. Most every provision and act by Blair and Bush had been in place long before they ever came into office. In many cases, the so-called "abuses" were far milder than what had been weathered in the past. For example, the US overcame the internment of the Japanese in WWII without forever becoming a totalitarian state. The reason is simple - we Westerners truly value Liberty. We compromise it rarely and with great trepidation notwithstanding the grandstanding of people like Dick Durbin and Chappaquidick Ted. My challenge stands to anyone who disagrees with this analysis: What action by Western government - Bush in particular - has specifically comprimised and/or changed your life in some marked way beyond anything reasonable in a time of war and/or beyond what has been done historically. (Hint: You cannot find an example.) The far greater risk to all of us is the profligate spending of our government on things having nothing to do with the preservation of Liberty. In the US, the Federal government alone spends *way* more on do-gooder/feelgood programs (that are outside of its Constitutional charter) than it does on military and defense systems. This runaway spending - by both Democrats AND Republicans) will do more harm to "our way of life" than any terrorist ever could. If Osama wants to *really* destroy the US, all he really needs to do is fund the AARP, the NEA, and all the other Handout 'Hos' in Washington... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Charles Self wrote: "carl" wrote in message ... "CW" wrote in message k.net... So are we. Stay where you are. "Connor Aston" wrote in message news:op.s34ti5fdqkab0d@vigor13... I'm so glad I dont live in America. A former Araqi General testified on Fox news that he witnessed two plane loads of WMD being flown from Bagdad to Damascus, Syria. Any one who doubts that Sadam had more than those known to have been used on his enenies has his head screwed on crooked. It is a disgrace that this thread continues. How stupid can some one be???? How stupid can some one be to ignore the fact that Iraq's chemical weapon factories were destroyed in 1991? He TESTIFIED on Fox News? Holy ****. Wow. That's impressive. I'm still trying to figure our what country an Araqi General would be from. -- FF |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Tim Daneliuk wrote: So much for "there was no reason to invade": http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=26514&access=569798 Long suspected, now confirmed by a *primary source*. Let us now gather to watch the Western political Left once again deny Reality in a desparate last gasp to retain anything slightly resembling relevance... Conspicuously absent from the article is any mention of where or how the alleged WMD were made. Also missing is any explanation for why Saddam Hussein would have sent WMD to Syria on the eve of the US invasion. What was he saving them for, the next US invasion of Iraq? Finally, let's not forget that after the Fall of Baghdad the Bush administration was still assuring us that they KNEW WMD were cached in the Sunni triangle. -- FF |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Leon wrote: "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ... So much for "there was no reason to invade": http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=26514&access=569798 Long suspected, now confirmed by a *primary source*. Let us now gather to watch the Western political Left once again deny Reality in a desparate last gasp to retain anything slightly resembling relevance... I indicated a couple of years ago that if you warn a terrorist government 6 months in advance that you are going to invade and they know there is no chance of stopping you, they are going to hide what they do not what you to see and have 6 months to do it. David Kay pointed out that while WMD might be hidden it is not possible to hide the factories. As he noted, no factories, no weapons. Let's not forget that the Bush administration claimed certain facilites to have been rebuilt, yet when those facilities were re-inspected in 2002-2003 they were still the same bombed-out ruins that they were in 1998. -- FF |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Tim Daneliuk wrote: FDR: There are Commies in my administration but they're harmless. ... 50 years of misery and oppression go by... In the US? Because if not, then one supposes FDR was right about his 'commies' being harmless. GWB/Rummy/Cheney: There is some evidence that the WMDs were moved into Syria before the war. Wrong. According to GWB/Rummy/Cheney the WMD were moved to forward positions and the field commaders authorized to use them at their own discretion. Yet after those hastily abandoned forward positions were oiverrun by US/UK forces, no WMD were found. Then, after the fall of Baghdad, according to GWB/Rummy/Cheney the WMD were hidden in the Sunni triangle. Now, according to GWB/Rummy/Cheney they were mistaken about Iraq's WMD. I have never seen anything from GWB/Rummy/Cheney claiming that WMD were shipped from Iraq to Syria. ... A former General in the Iraq Air Force - a primary source of information - publishes a book describing how WMDs were moved into Syria before the war ... That former General says he got his information second hand. Applying a similar standard implies that Baghdad Bob was a primary source. -- FF |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Robatoy wrote: In article , Tim Daneliuk wrote: So much for "there was no reason to invade": http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=26514&access=569798 Long suspected, now confirmed by a *primary source*. Let us now gather to watch the Western political Left once again deny Reality in a desparate last gasp to retain anything slightly resembling relevance... Sounds to me like a run-up/reason to go beat up on Syria. Another pawn in the game of Middle East chess designed to bring about The Greater Israel. Sure but on the part of whom, exactly? AFAIK no one high in the Bush administration has accused Syria of receiving and hiding Iraqi WMD. You know what happens when somebody is trying to sell a book? Stories.... yup.. stories. Uh hih. -- FF |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Tim Daneliuk wrote: Renata wrote: After almost 5 years and one Trillion dollars, the perpetrator of that act still runs around free, with virtually no interst by GWB. Renata On 26 Jan 2006 23:34:58 EST, Tim Daneliuk wrote: -snip- .... 9-11 Murders Take Place ... GWB: We will find and kill anyone who partipates or or supports terror. -snip- Why are you so absorbed by Osama? He murdered three thousand people on American soil. Letting him get away with it invites further attacks. -- FF |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
|
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
|
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Tim Daneliuk wrote: Charles Self wrote: ... What's good about that? Defeatist? Only in that we've stupidly allowed the terrorists to dominate our thinking for several years now. Their avowed purpose is to destroy our way of life. They've come almighty close. Really? What has substantively changed in your life (or come "almighty close") to actually changing. I challenge you to demonstrate a material and/or large change in how we live pre/post 9/11 except that the inept airport security is now inept AND slow. Hardly the end of civilization as we know it. The Washington DC ADIZ has all but destroyed General Aviation in the National Capital Area. Mail sent to our Congressmen and Senators is no longer opened and read by their staff. Think about that for a bit. -- FF |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Tim Daneliuk wrote: Charles Self wrote: . The terrorists have already won, anyway. Once we started changing our lives extensively in an effort to cope with the problems a lack of security caused, that was a win for dark side. OK, just for fun, let's pretend this bit of rhetoric is correct (it isn't, at least not to the degree you intimate and not by our own doing largely). Just *what* would you prefer that the West should have done in the face of violent terrorist attack and the promise of more on the way? Dunno about him but *I* think the world should have put pressure on Pakistan to allow multi-national forces to pursue and wipe our Al Quaida. Then we could have turned our sights on Hezbolla, or Hamas and those nations, Iran and Syria, that support them. More meetings at the UN? More cultural exchanges with the Islamic world? An apology from Bush for all those WTC victims bleeding messily on the sidewalks of NYC? See Charlie, *we* didn't change our lives - the little rectal parasites working as terrorists did. So what do you propose we *should* have done. I constantly hear *opposition* to what was done, how Bush acted, and all the rest of the blather. I never hear a thoughtful and viable alternative. NOT invading Iraq was a thoughtful and viable alternative to invading Iraq. Iraq provided no support for Al Queda and mininal support for other paramilitary groups. Starting a second war with Iraq, before finishing the one we were already in, was not tactically or strategically advisable. Now Al Queda can and does operate in Iraq, where previously it could not. -- FF |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Tim Daneliuk wrote: wrote: On 29 Jan 2006 01:44:54 EST, Tim Daneliuk wrote: 50% + of the Federal budget goes to entitlement programs of one kind or another Mostly Social Security, Medicare and various federal pension programs. Those are only going to get bigger as 70 million boomers wallow up to the trough.. Yup, aka "I never bothered to save from my retirement, so now I will indebt future generations, because being a thief is OK as long as *I* benefit." aka, being a liar is OK as long as my name is Tim Daneliuk. My SSA is funded by money withdrawn from my paycheck and a matching contriburton made by my employer as a benefit. I am not stealing anything, I am not a thief. It may be the case that I will wind up receiving more in benefits than I have payed in, then again maybe not. That's the way pension plans and their ilk work. Of course if my SSA monies had been invested, instead of spent, then there is no question that my SS benefits would be fuly funded from my own deposits. -- FF |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
So much for "there was no reason to invade": http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=26514&access=569798 Long suspected, now confirmed by a *primary source*. Let us now gather to watch the Western political Left once again deny Reality in a desparate last gasp to retain anything slightly resembling relevance... I notice that similar posts have appeared in other usenet groups (OT, of course). Different authors. Nothing official, or in the popular press. Can't even find a mention on Drudge. If this were indeed a "primary source" (as I read it, the General only claims second-hand knowledge) and our threat of attack resulted in the scattering of chemical and biological weapons throughout the Mideast, I can't imagine how this can help the administration. Or reduce the peril of such weapons falling into terrorists' hands. If Mr. Daneliuk's claim is true, then it deals a disastrous blow to the claim that the administration is competent to protect us from chemical or biological attack. Why were we unable to contain and destroy those weapons, Mr. Daneliuk? Poor intelligence, poor planning, lack of resources? Or was it Clinton's fault? Dale Scroggins |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
"todd" wrote in message
... "Charles Self" wrote in message ... "carl" wrote in message ... "CW" wrote in message k.net... So are we. Stay where you are. "Connor Aston" wrote in message news:op.s34ti5fdqkab0d@vigor13... I'm so glad I dont live in America. A former Araqi General testified on Fox news that he witnessed two plane loads of WMD being flown from Bagdad to Damascus, Syria. Any one who doubts that Sadam had more than those known to have been used on his enenies has his head screwed on crooked. It is a disgrace that this thread continues. How stupid can some one be???? He TESTIFIED on Fox News? Holy ****. Wow. That's impressive. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the various definitions of "testify". I guess in your world, it could only be true if it's reported on ABC News. Testify in court, under oath was something of the impression the poster was trying to give. He "stated" on Fox News. Lots of difference. I don't generally watch TV news unless it's on local events, but I have tried Fox News from time to time. The others are **** poor, and Fox News beats them for lousiness hands down. |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
5 Attachment(s)
"Charles Self" wrote in message ... "todd" wrote in message ... "Charles Self" wrote in message ... "carl" wrote in message ... "CW" wrote in message k.net... So are we. Stay where you are. "Connor Aston" wrote in message news:op.s34ti5fdqkab0d@vigor13... I'm so glad I dont live in America. A former Araqi General testified on Fox news that he witnessed two plane loads of WMD being flown from Bagdad to Damascus, Syria. Any one who doubts that Sadam had more than those known to have been used on his enenies has his head screwed on crooked. It is a disgrace that this thread continues. How stupid can some one be???? He TESTIFIED on Fox News? Holy ****. Wow. That's impressive. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the various definitions of "testify". I guess in your world, it could only be true if it's reported on ABC News. Testify in court, under oath was something of the impression the poster was trying to give. He "stated" on Fox News. Lots of difference. I don't generally watch TV news unless it's on local events, but I have tried Fox News from time to time. The others are **** poor, and Fox News beats them for lousiness hands down. tes·ti·fy (tst-f) v. intr. 1.. To make a declaration of truth or fact under oath; submit testimony: witnesses testifying before a grand jury. 2.. To express or declare a strong belief, especially to make a declaration of faith. 3.. To make a statement based on personal knowledge in support of an asserted fact; bear witness: the exhilaration of weightlessness, to which many astronauts have testified. 4.. To serve as evidence: wreckage that testifies to the ferocity of the storm. I wish I had your clairvoyance to know that he was using the first definition and not the third. todd |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
About the best case you can make is it might have caused $3.00/gal gas
sooner than it would have otherwise occurred, but probably not by much. There is no new petroleum being made, or if there is, on a geological time scale. We are pumping the planet dry. When gas gets expensive enough, economic incentives will alternatives "hylourgos" wrote in message ups.com... Tim wrote: "Really? What has substantively changed in your life (or come "almighty close") to actually changing. I challenge you to demonstrate a material and/or large change in how we live pre/post 9/11..." To be fair, I think you'd have to consider gas prices at least, and how that affects the rest of the economy. When it went up over 200%, that caused no small number of dependent changes, and will continue to do so. H |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
I don't quite know how I sent this, but let me complete the sentence:
When gas gets expensive enough, economic incentives will lead to alternatives. Much of the rest of the world already has gas at prices over $4.00/gal and they continue to function. If we are fortunate, the fundamental research will get done by the time we really need it. By the way, don't get me started on the wonders of hydrogen as a gasoline supplement. There are no hydrogen mines or wells, no hydrogen refineries. It has to be made from water, or some hydrocarbon, with a loss of energy. It is at best a medium of exchange, like electricity. Enough. Rant on. Steve About the best case you can make is it might have caused $3.00/gal gas sooner than it would have otherwise occurred, but probably not by much. There is no new petroleum being made, or if there is, on a geological time scale. We are pumping the planet dry. When gas gets expensive enough, economic incentives will alternatives "hylourgos" wrote in message ups.com... Tim wrote: "Really? What has substantively changed in your life (or come "almighty close") to actually changing. I challenge you to demonstrate a material and/or large change in how we live pre/post 9/11..." To be fair, I think you'd have to consider gas prices at least, and how that affects the rest of the economy. When it went up over 200%, that caused no small number of dependent changes, and will continue to do so. H |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
"Steve Peterson" wrote in message
ink.net... I don't quite know how I sent this, but let me complete the sentence: When gas gets expensive enough, economic incentives will lead to alternatives. Much of the rest of the world already has gas at prices over $4.00/gal and they continue to function. If we are fortunate, the fundamental research will get done by the time we really need it. By the way, don't get me started on the wonders of hydrogen as a gasoline supplement. There are no hydrogen mines or wells, no hydrogen refineries. It has to be made from water, or some hydrocarbon, with a loss of energy. It is at best a medium of exchange, like electricity. Enough. Rant on. Steve The last I checked, there wasn't a whole lot of gasoline wells around where we just walk up, attach a hose, and start pumping. Crude oil is extracted and refined (with the input of energy) to produce gasoline. todd |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
"Charles Self" wrote in message news:JvnDf.311330 Testify in court, under oath was something of the impression the poster was trying to give. Y'know, there are some folks who'll even lie then.... |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
todd wrote:
"Steve Peterson" wrote in message ink.net... I don't quite know how I sent this, but let me complete the sentence: When gas gets expensive enough, economic incentives will lead to alternatives. Much of the rest of the world already has gas at prices over $4.00/gal and they continue to function. If we are fortunate, the fundamental research will get done by the time we really need it. By the way, don't get me started on the wonders of hydrogen as a gasoline supplement. There are no hydrogen mines or wells, no hydrogen refineries. It has to be made from water, or some hydrocarbon, with a loss of energy. It is at best a medium of exchange, like electricity. Enough. Rant on. Steve The last I checked, there wasn't a whole lot of gasoline wells around where we just walk up, attach a hose, and start pumping. Crude oil is extracted and refined (with the input of energy) to produce gasoline. Yes, but the energy extracted from a unit of oil is more than what it takes to extract it. With hydrogen, the extraction process takes more energy that what you end up with. -jav |
OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
"Steve Peterson" wrote in message ink.net... Much of the rest of the world already has gas at prices over $4.00/gal and they continue to function. If we are fortunate, the fundamental research will get done by the time we really need it. They don't have the same driving habits, or distance to commute or interstates and freeways for vacationing that we have. Misleading or nearly worthless comparison, as US drivers more often than not _must_ drive because of where they live and work. I think it's easier to control reactors and their by-products than carbon load, but I'm in the minority. By the way, don't get me started on the wonders of hydrogen as a gasoline supplement. There are no hydrogen mines or wells, no hydrogen refineries. It has to be made from water, or some hydrocarbon, with a loss of energy. It is at best a medium of exchange, like electricity. Enough. Rant on. We're going to "mine" the methyl hydrate on the bottom of the ocean, haven't you heard? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:39 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter