Tuesday Night Open Mic for January 26, 2010

Another week of discussions is well underway. I have to say that I was disappointed initially with the way the discussion went on the bank regulation article. I was really hoping that we would hear some ideas for how this could be accomplished without government putting regulations in place. I would really like to find an alternative solution. As we move forward in discussions, we have to accept that reality is what it is, but I would really like to begin to formulate some actual ways to remove government from the vital areas that they currently inject themselves into. There was a little too much “regulation is needed” and too little explaining why. Alternatives exist, so I want to find them. Aside from that I offer a warning to Mathius, as I recall that he drives the same exact vehicle that I do (at least I think so, Infiniti G35S). I ran over a piece of metal today that blew my tire. Seemed like a small thing. But no, the simple flapping of my tire apparently cracked the wheel in three places. Total cost for a new wheel and new tire? $1500! Watch where you drive my friend. Owning luxury comes at a heavy cost for repairs! How that small event ruined my day is an epic tale or woe and dismay…..

A Quick Look at my Baby….

Advertisements

Comments

  1. USWeapon Topic #1

    No article to link to with this first topic. I have to say I liked the way that the conspiracy theory article played. People took the time to put some thought into what they were reading and analyze the material presented based on merit. It would be an easy thing to dismiss them all. But I think it is a fun exercise to attempt to go through them and figure out what is real and what is not. It is even more fun to speculate on what the true purpose is for the things that are real.

    I always find the discussions around the 9/11 conspiracy to be the most interesting. Bizarre claims of controlled demolitions simply don’t make any sense to me what-so-ever. The amount of time and energy that would go into such an endeavor literally makes it pure folly to think of that as the reality (purely my opinion, of course). It takes 2 weeks of 3 crews and 24 hour a day wiring to do an unconcealed wiring to bring down a building from demolition. How much time would it have taken to do a controlled demolition that would be so perfect as to not be obvious, in a building 100+ stories tall, while doing the wiring in a way that no one would even notice it? Just doesn’t seem plausible.

    The claims that physics laws make demolition the only viable possibility are also false. There are lots of unanswered questions. There are lots of things that don’t add up. But to immediately make the jump to a controlled demolition done on purpose to fool the American people is simply going too far, again just my opinion.

    I will stay away from arguing the specifics with those who are not interested in considering that they may be wrong. It is time that I simply don’t have to give. But I do have one really big question that I would like for someone to answer (specifically I would be interested in BF’s answer to this). I would like to know what you think the REASON would be to take such steps.

    WHY would someone go to the trouble of spending literally years doing clandestine wiring and spending hundreds of millions of dollars to get the explosives and specialty equipment in order to make the two towers and building 7 collapse? It makes no sense to me. What is the purpose of doing so? In doing so they increase exponentially the risk of something going wrong and exposing the fraud. And they do so for no apparent benefit (at least not apparent to me).

    We have video of two planes hitting the two towers. The damage was done. If George Bush or whomever else wanted a reason to justify their future “war on terror”, they had it right there. The buildings coming down was unnecessary. Once the planes hit those two buildings, Americans were accepting of whatever steps towards war America wanted to take. Americans were accepting of whatever actions usurping rights (Patriot Act) were taken. The buildings coming was an unnecessary risk, an unwarranted action with little to no return on investment. Anyone smart enough to pull off a 9/11 conspiracy action would have been smart enough to understand that the risk of exposure was too great with little ROI if adding a massive (larger than any in history before) controlled demolition and attempting to fool the world into believing that it was real. Not to mention that WTC 7 really had nothing to do with anything, so why would they have done that building as well.

    Therein lies the problem for me. I simply see no motive for the massive increase in risk. Which means I am not yet believing in any of the controlled explosion theories. I hope I get some rational answers to these thoughts. I would like to understand better.

    • Black Flag,
      After you answer USWeapon’s question about motive, here’s a theory on the WTC Collapse.

      First, the set-up:

      20 years ago I was visiting my grandparents. At one point, I hear this whooshing sound that slowly grows into a roar – a chimney fire! I got down on the floor and looked up the chimney. A few feet above the fire box it looked like a blast furnace. The three walls I could see were completely ablaze, and the whole chimney was glowing red-hot.

      I ran outside and the chimney looked like an old coal-fired locomotive – belching nothing but black smoke.

      I ran back inside and looked up the chimney again, and the “blast furnace” had moved up the chimney. I couldn’t really see it, but I could see the glow and hear the roar.

      I ran outside again and the chimney was still belching nothing but black smoke. A few seconds later it erupted into a fireball that looked like a blow torch for about 5 seconds and then it went out.

      Everyone was Ok and no damage – but pretty scary!!

      While the fire was raging in the bottom of the chimney, the top was oxygen starved and looked like a big smoldering fire. When the flames finally reached the top they “exploded” in the oxygen and quickly burned out the fuel that was left in the top of the chimney.

      So what does this have to do with the WTC? It was designed to withstand the impact from a 707 and the burning of the jet fuel, but could they really predict how that fuel burn would occur?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center
      WTC Design

      The World Trade Center towers utilized high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure, supporting virtually all lateral loads such as wind loads, and sharing the gravity load with the core columns.

      The core of the towers housed the elevator and utility shafts, restrooms, three stairwells, and other support spaces. The core – a combined steel and concrete structure – of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41 m) and contained 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower.

      Picture of Design
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Trade_Center_Building_Design_with_Floor_and_Elevator_Arrangment.svg

      First, this article says the exterior walls shared the gravity load with the core columns. You have disputed that. Do you have more info about that? I can’t imagine that the exterior walls didn’t share some of the gravity load. If they didn’t, as either T-Ray or SK Trynosky pointed out, the concrete floors would have to be cantilevered or supported only by cables. That doesn’t seem logical to me. But it really doesn’t affect my theory too much…

      February 13, 1975 fire

      On February 13, 1975, a three-alarm fire broke out on the 11th floor of the North Tower. Fire spread through the core to the 9th and 14th floors by igniting the insulation of telephone cables in a utility shaft that ran vertically between floors.

      In 1975, an office fire was able to spread thru the core in phone cables. What would 10,000 gallons of jet fuel do?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11

      Elevator shafts channeled burning jet fuel through the (North) building. At least one elevator shaft carried burning fuel downward, exploding on the 77th floor, the 22nd floor, and at street level on the West Side Lobby.

      Once that fuel exploded out at these points, it created an opening for oxygen to feed the fire. The fire then burned it’s way back up thru the elevator and utility shafts in the core like a chimney fire. While the fire was raging in the bottom of the core (or at least below the impact site), the top was oxygen starved and looked like a big smoldering fire.

      As this fire burned up the shafts it weakened the steel and concrete in the core, but as you pointed out, the lower floors were the strongest and were able to take the heat. But the upper floors were exposed to all the heat from the fire below them, and at some point as the fire moved up the core, the core structure could no longer support the building above it. When the core started to collapse, it pulled the exterior walls down & in, and since the core had been weakened below that point, the whole tower went down like a planned demolition. This doesn’t necessarily mean the steel of the core was burned away, but the steel was heated enough that it bent/warped and the concrete was heated enough that it basically crumbled, which created space for the top of the building to crush the steel downward, or splinter it outward, etc.

      This is how the collapse started below the impact point, and the fires can explain popping and exploding as heat and pressure built up below the impact point.

      The actual impact of the planes is not a part of this theory. Actually, stronger exterior walls help this theory, because they support the structure longer as the fire weakens the core support. Whether the exterior walls shared the gravity load with the core columns isn’t real important – either way they had enough support to keep the buildings up (and straight) until the core was weakened to the point of collapse.

      The conversations between some of the fire fighters only shows that they did not reach the hotter fires. It does not prove those fires didn’t exist.

      You talked about all these collapse theories could only be true if 100 years and millions of hours of engineering are wrong. But I believe the WTC towers are the only structures of their size to collapse, right? They are also the only structures to be subjected to the fire created by 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. Is this something that can really be model and designed for? (You don’t like the modeling used in another topic!!). The impact can be modeled – 300,000 lbs traveling 400 mph exerts “X” lbs of force. But the burning jet fuel? How much fuel burns in the initial collision/explosion? Where does the remaining fuel go, how much oxygen does it get, and at what rate does it burn? There would have to be a lot of assumptions on how that fuel would burn to try to account for it.

      How many years and hours of practical experience do we have with bringing down tall buildings? The challenges and factors are multiplied as the height of the building expands to more than the footprint, and the WTC towers are 6 times as tall as they are wide.

      But both towers did collapse in the same fashion? Quite the coincidence, hey? But they were both subjected to the “same” jet fuel fires, and the one that was hit lower collapsed faster (time from impact to collapse). That would make sense because there was more weight above the fires.

      Final thought – I watched the collapse live on TV. My thoughts – in order: Holy $#)% – OMG – Holy $#)%…wow, it fell straight down – I would have thought it would have tipped over…

      So there you go – have fun!!!

      PS – I reserve the right to correct and add stuff as necessary!!

      • Todd,

        Let’s start on one piece and work it out.

        Jet Fuel:
        90% of it burnt away in the first 5 seconds in the explosion. The rest can only burn at a MAXIMUM temperature of 287.5 °C (549.5 °F).

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel#Jet_A

        Any claim that this was the cause of any failure of steel cannot be true.

        • First Piece:
          The most widely used steel of the day was A36 with a yield strength of 36 ksi. Tables that my company uses to reduce the yield of steel for design show at 600 F the yield is 27.09 ksi and at 400 F it is 33 ksi. At 549.5 F it turns out to 28.58 ksi a reduction of 20.6%

          Steel design is calculated for a stress as close to 100% as possible to reduce the amount of steel needed to reduce cost of material. A 20% reduction in strength would be catastrophic if it was not designed for prolonged heating.

          • Naten35,

            I cannot agree with this statement – it contradicts every design engineer and architect I know or know of has said.

            Steel design is calculated for a stress as close to 100% as possible to reduce the amount of steel needed to reduce cost of material. A 20% reduction in strength would be catastrophic if it was not designed for prolonged heating.

            The designers of the WTC have specifically stated and demonstrated by their documentation, drawings and blue prints that they overbuilt the structure to 10x the load factor for each floor.

            Further to your calculation, did you do the heat capacity?

            Since steel transfers heat away from the fire to other parts of the structure, before failure, the heat capacity of the entire building needs to be consumed before any degradation of the steel. This is why putting a steel beam in a hot fire does not immediately distort – the entire beam absorbs heat (which is why your fingers burn touch the steel) – when that capacity is consumed, the steel begins to distort.

            • I would like to hopefully help the situtation from my perspective as someone who is a design engineer. To be clear I am a mechanical engineer, however I do have experience with design with steel, I have studied heat transfer, statics, dynamics, finite element analysis, mechanics of materials, amoung other fields of engineering that may apply.

              First off very few designs are every made close to 100% of desired strength. Not even in the aircraft industry where weight is a hugh issue.

              Second a solid material like steel does not heat evenly like a fluid will. With in the same steel beam one end can be heated to 400 degrees. While the other end remains relativly cool say 100 degrees. So the thought that the entire building or even an entire section of a building must reach its
              heat capacity before a failure happens is wrong. If the steel did heat evenly then it would be impossible for someone to cut a steel tube with a torch, becuase the entire piece would have to melt before a peice of it would.

              The jet fuel most likely was burned in the first few seconds after impact. The jet fuel also most likely created secondary fire with materials like paper and office furniture. Which can burn in the right situations with enough oxygen at several hundred to thousands of degrees depending on the material and air flow. I do not know what these materials were so I cannot give an estimation of the temp.

              As for why the collapse may have happend in a different location than the fire. It is entirely possible that the expansion of the steel being heated caused high stress loads on beams that were not heated. As the heated beams expand the non-heated beams remain the same length. This creates extremly large moments on joints which can cause hundreds of thousands of pounds per sq. in. of stress. Once again I do not know the specifics of the building so I cannot say exactly what would happen. I can say it is feasable.

              Also remember that in the last 30 years our understanding of stress and how to predict a materials behaivor has drastically changed.

              My point is that it is feasable and even likely that the towers fell for just the reason we are being told they did. I have yet to see a solid arguement as to why it could not have happened because damaged caused by the airplanes.

              • Seed,

                NIST themselves did experiments – providing the maximum heat possible in an office environment – could not cause the steel to deform or fail.

                I have already provided a video which included the NIST experimenter and his study.

                I take your point – however, there exists no historical examples in the 100+ history of skyscrapers that even comes close to your claim.

                Thus, your extreme speculation requires extreme proof.

                Sadly, you will find none (other than WTC)

                You have a hard task in front of you, methinks.

                Compare this fire *in China with WTC 7

                And the most damning –

                NIST undertook a study of building collapses due to fire.

                There are ZERO examples of any building taller than 9 stories collapsing due to fire (except of course, WTC)

                NOTE: The table labels the St. Petersburg fire as 19 stories tall – it wasn’t it – it was 9. In the text they state 9 – the table has a typo….and it was concrete….

                http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire02/PDF/f02028.pdf

                Symmetrical:

                There has been symmetrical collapses of a building in the world – but it was not a fire – but earthquakes – with only ONE building 20 stories or higher falling symmetrically. There was no fire.* (see reply for web site)

                Also of key note – the floors are not crumbled to dust they are piled on top of each other – in complete contrast to WTC 1,2 and 7.

                In fact, no buildings in history have been crumbled to dust by any action other than explosives.

                In the tens of thousands of buildings that collapsed across Kobe and Mexico study – NONE fell to crumble – ONE of 21 stories pancaked – the rest toppled or failed ASYMMETRICALLY.

                And, re: WTC 7
                In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project.

                ”We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building’s structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,” said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ”Sure enough, Salomon had that need.

                ”And there were many other ways that we designed as much adaptability as possible into the building because we knew that flexible layout is important to large space users.”

                Nearly 2,000 people will be working on the retrofit project during the peak period. The cost, which is estimated at $200 million – not including carpeting, furniture and other office equipment – will come out of Salomon’s pocket.

                ”We made a landlord contribution to the work,” Mr. Silverstein said, ”but Salomon’s costs will go well beyond that contribution by many, many times.”

                MORE than 375 tons of steel – requiring 12 miles of welding – will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon’s extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower’s fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station.

                Strange for a building – designed to withstand entire floors removed – with added redundancy – is the only multi-store steel building in history to collapse due to fire.

                The more one investigates the claims of those that attempt to explain WTC 7 without explosives the stranger the WTC 7 failure becomes.

              • http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/world/asia/10beijing.html?hp

                Fire Ravages Renowned Building in Beijing

              • I’ve provided NIST report of fire failures – showing none (except WTC) for any steel building higher than 6 (nor any building construction higher than 9).

                I’ve provided a sampling of far more extreme fires not causing buildings to fall.

                I’ve provided circumstances of symmetrical collapse – 100% of them due to earthquake, or structural failure during construction

                I found zero evidence of any building in history being crumbled to dust that did not use explosives.

                I did all this work for you.

                I find it strange that your bizarre belief for the cause of WTC 7 collapse has no support whatsoever – yet, you hold it to be the superior answer.

              • Black Flag,
                I think Seed was talking about WTC 1 & 2, not 7.

              • WTC 7 is the primary issue
                as is the flight recorder from Flight 77.

          • I am an electrician (of sorts)and have run into some interesting situations over the years. Something that is impossible can and will happen, logic be damned, during low voltage or poor grounds.

            I think that principal applies here as well. My thoughts, steel + concrete = corrosion. Add time factor.

            The floors are concrete with steel re-enforcing. If one large floor section fell onto the floor below, that would set off a chain of destruction. Only one floor had to fail to cause a hyper-stressed building to collapse.

            • (1) Define hyper-stress
              (2) Define time element – the buildings were not old by any definition.
              (3) if one wishes to demand impossible scenarios, impossible proof is required. Please present such.

              • Stress, a state of alarm and adrenaline production, short-term resistance as a coping mechanism, and exhaustion, as well as irritability, muscular tension, inability to concentrate and a variety of physiological reactions such as headache and elevated heart rate.

                Hyper Stress, all of the above and I shat myself upon seeing BLACK FLAG had sent me a response. LOL

                So what would happen if a major floor section fell?

        • Black Flag,
          Do you have a link about 90% of the jet fuel burning in the first 5 seconds? I’ve seen all kinds of claims about the consumption and burn rates.

          Even if 90% burned during the impact, that still leaves 1000 gallons to spread down the elevator and utility shafts and burn the core.

          As far as the temperature of the burn, I do not dispite the 549.5 °F, but when confined to a small space, the temperature is ‘magnified’ (not sure that’s the right word).

          Example – If I could have scraped all the creosote out of my grandparents’ chimney, I could have had a small campfire that would have burned up at a low temperature. However, when confined to the chimney, it created a ‘blast furnace’ that raged for 5-8 minutes.

          • Todd,

            Sir, you confuse rate of consumption with heat.

            One stick will appear to have a small fire – but the temp. of the flame will be the same as the an entire camp fire filled with logs.

            There is a maximum temp. of which a fuel can burn. The chemical reaction does not change based on quantity.

            Further, time is not an issue either (except for heat capacity).

            Holding a spoon in a fire for 30 minutes vs an hour makes no difference. All that matters is that the heat capacity is consumed.

            Once it is, nothing changes no matter how long it is held in the fire.

            The fuel requires oxygen – but all indications show it is starved. Your chimney had lots of air coming in from the bottom vs the opening at the top. The WTC is opposite – had only what could be pulled out of the building through the stairwells – we see the smoke coming OUT of the building, not being sucked in.

            Here is the calculation based on the BEST POSSIBLE oxygenated scenario – thus much higher than possible in the WTC.

            Therefore T = (477,400,000,000 + 46,441,341,875)/1,857,653,675 = 282° C (540° F).

            So, the jet fuel could (at the very most) have only added T – 25 = 282 – 25 = 257° C (495° F) to the temperature of the typical office fire that developed.

            http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

            An survivor explaining the time of the fire –

            Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying: “We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that’s when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped.”

          • Black Flag,
            My correlation with a chimney fire is to show how what looks like a smoldering fire can actually be a hot fire down below. When I said the “temperature is magnified” before, a better phase would be the “temperature is focused and contained”, meaning what heat was created by the fire in the core would be contained mostly in the core from the point of the fire and above.

            Since burning jet fuel managed to drop 90 floors down an elevator shaft and burst into the lobby, it’s obvious a fair amount of the jet fuel survived the original impact explosion. This fire ball going down the elevator shaft would have ignited the wiring and cables that run thru the utility shafts (and whatever else is in there), and when the flames burst thru elevator doors at the bottom, it would have created a draft that feed air to the fire in the core above, just like a chimney fire.

            If the jet fuel added 495° F to the temperature of the typical office fire that developed, that could create quite a hot fire. More than enough to heat the steel in the core to weaken and distort it, and to heat the cement to the point of it losing it’s structural integrity.

            As for a survivor explaining the time of the fire lasting for maybe 15 to 20 seconds, that was at one point on the 78th floor. That doesn’t apply to the entire fire, which burned for over an hour.

            • The flash that the office worker saw is very easily explained. Put some gasoline in a tray and touch a match to it. It will flash. This is the vapors burning. There will be a substantial amount of liquid in the tray that will burn on the surface and continue to burn for some time. It is the vapors that explode, flash and burn. Jet A has a low vapor pressue at room temperature about 0.5 mm of Hg or 0.5/760 atm. Jet A is essentually kerosene so will not vaporize as easily as gasoline. It boils in the range of 175C to 300C which is higher than gasoline but lower than fuel oil or diesel. It is not very likely that all of the Jet A burned in 5 s. (Don’t forget you have to add the latent heat of vaprization.) Throw some kero on a cement pad and set it on fire. It will not disappear in 5 s. Some of the fuel from the plane would have been atomized on impact but again my gut tells me that much more than 10% would still be liquid after 5 s. So the fuel fire could have lasted for several minutes maybe long depending on the size of the pools. Tanks is refineries can burn for hours and days.

              As for the temperatures in a wood fire, look at a fire closely. The color is a good indication of the blackbody temperature. In the center of a wood fire, the color is almost white indicating much higher temperatures. This is because the fire is contained and cannot radiate the energy freely in all directions. If the energy from the combustion cannot be removed (non-equilibrium condition), then the temperature must go up until equilibrium is established.

              Burning jet fuel in the central core could have created the chimney fire situation. The draft up the core would have created a much hotter fire than the free air combustion temperature of Jet A. That fire would probably be hotter below the point of impact where the source of oxygen is just as a match held horizontally is hotter on the bottom.

              Another point, the plane was made mostly of aluminum which is combustible and burns at very high temperatures. It also contained a lot of plastics.

              “The floors were connected to the perimeter spandrel plates with viscoelastic dampers which helped reduce the amount of sway felt by building occupants.” Wiki Article linked above.

              In other words, the floors were supported on the perimeter by the outside walls but through a viscous/elastic material. They could move independent of the outside walls. So the floors were supported but not welded to the ouside. Most likely they were pinned in some fashion so there would be a limit to the movement. The floors were not cantilevered, i.e. totally supported by the central core.

              It looks very much to me like a central core collapse at the point of the impact or just below where the fire would have had the most oxygen. With upper floors suddenly dropping, the impact (impulse force) and shock wave down the core would have been much greater than 10x of normal loading. The floors would have ripped away from the outer wall and pancaked easily since it was not a solid link. I do not know what the viscoelastamer was but it too could have been flammable at some temperature.

              What we see from the outside is air compression blowing out the windows due to the floor collapse inside in advance of the outer walls collapsing. What it says to me is the floors were preceding the walls by about 5-10 stories. The walls then cave inward following the floors down.

              The squibs that BF mentioned? Could these be air compression blowouts several floors below were an elevator shaft or other veritcal shaft is terminated as a fire break? That should be determinable from the design.

              Another point. For demolition to occur in such a precise manner, requires someone to trigger the event and pull off hundreds of explosions in a carefully timed fashion. Remember, the place is on fire, wire insulation is mostly PVC or Teflon. It burns, wires short, breakers trip. This would require that nearly all the fuse wires to remain intact until they were needed in the middle of a raging inferno.

              WT7 Explained by NIST:
              http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/techbeat/tbx2008_1120_wtc7.htm

              No explosions required.

              • T-Ray,

                The NIST report is laughable.

                Please read above my short book regarding evidence elsewhere.

                Please provide an alternative example – any where in the world – any building taller than 9 stories – that holds to your theory.

                NIST cannot explain symmetry. Please read this – from your evidence.

                NIST claims that the collapse of Building 7 is “The first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building”.

                A question from the audience during the presentation of the NIST report by Sunder from NIST:

                However Sunder would later go on to explain that it would require a very large amount of explosives to bring it down by demolition… and he was asked

                “if the buildings were so vulnerable to collapse due to regular fires alone, wouldn’t they also be equally vulnerable to failure with just a small number of explosives?”

                Sunder… proceeded to stumble through some convoluted explanation for why only fire could be responsible…

                Quote:

                As federal agency declares ‘new phenomenon’ downed WTC 7, activists cry foul
                Stephen C. Webster
                Published: Thursday August 21, 2008

                Buzz up!18 votes

                Print This Email This

                According to a federal agency report released Thursday, a “new phenomenon” known as thermal expansion was directly responsible for the mysterious collapse of World Trade Center 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.

                This study, posed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology — a federal scientific agency which promotes technical industrial standards — marks the first ‘official’ government theory on the collapse.

                The building’s demise occurred some seven hours after the twin towers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, and has been the source of numerous conspiracy theories key to the “9/11 Truth” movement, most of which argue that the symmetrical, seven-second collapse was brought about by a controlled demolition.

                Dr. Shyam Sunder, director of Institute’s building and fire research laboratory, oversaw the government’s three-year research efforts. The report aims to disprove the controlled demolition argument.

                However, Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a member of the American Institute of Architects, doesn’t believe a word of the theory.

                His group, which has swelled to over 400 architectural and engineering professionals, immediately responded to the Institute’s claim in a press conference.

                “Tons of [molten metal] was found 21 days after the attack,” said Gage in an interview with a Vancouver, Canada television station. “Steel doesn’t begin to melt until 2,700 degrees, which is much hotter than what these fires could have caused.”

                “There are holes in this story that you can drive a truck through,” Gage added during the press conference. His group asserts that thermite, a steel cutting agent, was used to bring the building down.

                Dr. Sunder disagreed.

                “We conducted the study without bias, without interference from anyone,” said Dr. Sunder. “We have only one single-minded goal in this effort.”

                While the Institute said it considered the possibility of a controlled demolition taking place at WTC 7, the notion was dismissed due to the absence of any recordings of an explosion sound.

                Thermite, however, does not make an explosion sound. And while this was raised to Dr. Sunder in the media’s Q&A session, he dismissed it as impossible.

                “FEMA found it,” said Gage. “Dr. Steven Jones found it, in the dust that landed in the entire area of lower Manhattan. And he finds it in the chunks of previously molten metal [from the towers].”

                Specifically, in Appendix C of its World Trade Center Building Performance Study, FEMA claimed:

                Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel… The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.

                Yet, no study of the mysterious sulfur or melted steel was included in the NIST report.

                Another quote:
                NIST has solved the mystery of WTC 7, explaining that a brand “new phenomenon” was discovered, namely, that “thermal expansion”… NIST also discovered another new phenomenon it calls “fire”. (NIST explained that fire is hot)… which led to the “thermal expansion”.

              • Black Flag,

                NIST explained that fire is hot.

                So what part of hot don’t you understand????

                🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

              • What part of it NOT being a new phenomena did you miss?

                Do you believe that in the millions of man years spent building skyscrapers, the engineers have figured out fire is hot and planned for it?

                …which is why no skyscraper has fallen due to fire?

              • Black Flag,

                All the 🙂 were to indicate I was joking about the “hot” comment.

              • Todd,

                I figured – but I’m not laughing when NIST calls it a “new phenomena”

              • Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
                NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

                Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.

                To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column … presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

                It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.

                Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

                Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

              • Todd,

                NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

                This is a total lie (not by you, but by NIST).

                They did NOT look at all into thermite/thermate. They did NO test of any metal or dust for its existence.

                “Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? . . . NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.” — NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006

              • Todd,

                Further on nano-thermite:

                The high surface area of the reactants within energetic sol-gels allows for the far higher rate of energy release than is seen in “macro” thermite mixtures, making nano-thermites “high explosives” as well as pyrotechnic materials (Tillotson et al 1999). Sol-gel nano-thermites, are often called energetic nanocomposites, metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) or superthermite (COEM 2004, Son et al 2007), and silica is often used to create the porous, structural framework (Clapsaddle et al 2004, Zhao et al 2004). Nano-thermites have also been made with RDX (Pivkina et al 2004), and with thermoplastic elastomers (Diaz et al 2003). But it is important to remember that, despite the name, nano-thermites pack a much bigger punch than typical thermite materials

            • Todd,

              managed to drop 90 floors down an elevator shaft and burst into the lobby

              Can you provide some documentation to this effect? I found none – not even NIST states this.

              • Black Flag,

                I referenced this above:

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11

                Elevator shafts channeled burning jet fuel through the (North) building. At least one elevator shaft carried burning fuel downward, exploding on the 77th floor, the 22nd floor, and at street level on the West Side Lobby.

              • How can that be?

                All but two of the elevators shafts are not connected top to bottom – they are staged.

                Until these towers, there was no lift capable of carrying the weight of the cables for a tower that height, and in these towers they installed only two – which went to the top floors only.

                Further, the elevators do not stop in the lobby – the stop in the sub-basement.

                If this contention was even remotely correct, they would burn in the basement.

                So your claim that they were the cause of explosions on other floors is very suspect.

                I checked your reference – and comes from only one news story from 2002.

                Further, though the Wiki paragraph referenced this news item for its claim – no where in the article did it claim that jet fuel caused any explosions on any other floor – and only mentioned (without reference) in the National Geo piece.

                The only reference to the 77th was:
                That empty elevator probably plummeted 14 floors into a pit on the 77th floor

                There was no reference the 22nd

                Your speculation has no merit

                I investigated further and found no other reference to this matter

              • Black Flag,
                Ok, it’s never happened before. There’s always a first time for everything. 😉

                How many building over 40-50 stories have been hit by commercial airplanes?
                Did it ever happen before 9/11?
                And yet on that day it happened twice.

                There was a lot of stuff going on inside those buildings that we’ll never know about.

                So, if there were fires raging inside the steel and concrete core of WTC 1 & 2, could that weakened them enough to bring them down?

                I’ll just trying to move the conversation along…

              • Todd

                Ok, it’s never happened before. There’s always a first time for everything. 😉

                Sure, but not three at the first time.

                If it never happened before, or since, but happened exactly once then – I’d be wholly less suspicious – the odds would be only, say 1 /1000 – well within the universe.

                But three??? on the same day???

                The odds grow to larger than the chance that an iron atom mutates naturally into gold.

                How many building over 40-50 stories have been hit by commercial airplanes?
                Did it ever happen before 9/11?

                B-25 Empire State Building Collision

                (3w’s here).aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0311.shtml

                None hit WTC 7 –

                The WTC 1 and 2 were made with jet airliners in mind.

                There is NOTHING about a jet strike that changes this dynamic.

                The buildings did not fall due to the planes because they were still standing for minutes after.

                Here is a simulation that demonstrates my point – this building in sim fails immediately</b.

                And yet on that day it happened twice.

                You are very typical of most people who confuse random events with human designed events

                If your logic was correct, you would claim this:

                “Well since many buildings have completely crumbled in their foot print in the past (by design), it is an expected effect we see from non-designed failures

                But that is ridiculous.

                So comparing the designed and purposeful assault to represent equivalence to non-designed events is a fallacy.

                The only equilivilent is:

                Since the planes crashed into the building purposely – had that had never happened before – the buildings collapsed on purpose too – as that has never happened before.

                There was a lot of stuff going on inside those buildings that we’ll never know about.

                We are not stupid.

                First, we have witnesses.

                Second, we have fire fighters own comments and descriptions. These guys are professionals and their lives depend on the accuracy of their determinations.

                I have already provided that documentation which completely refutes your fire claims.

                Third, we have the laws of physics. These do not change if you are inside or outside of a building.

                So, if there were fires raging inside the steel and concrete core of WTC 1 & 2, could that weakened them enough to bring them down?

                No.

                As I have already documented NIST did an experiment, and under no circumstance could they demonstrate a failure.

                I’ll just trying to move the conversation along…

                The point, Todd.

                Your position – supporting the official story – is wholly based on no evidence – and a bunch of threaded “it has never happened before” claims.

                Yet, the obvious answer – one that explains the entire event without resorting to any fantasy, alteration of physics and specious claims – is called “conspiracy” and is “unbelievable”.

                I find that incredible.

                Why do I find that incredible?

                Because if you minus the fear of discovering the implications of such a cause, there wouldn’t be one person who would debate that it was brought down by explosives

                If you knew it was wired – for whatever reason – and then it came down – 100% of you would say “Yeah, that collapse makes sense”.

                So the only difference is the fear of the implication.

                Thus, the yank and pull on fantastic stories to avoid it.

              • Please do not drag the Empire State into this. A totally different type of construction. Serious fireproofing with solid masonry instead of sheetrock and sprayed on.

                Watched a ten story building burn on the ninth floor one time. It was 1912 construction. Steel columns sheathed in concrete and horizantal beam, all riveted together. Poured concrete floor with rebar. The walls between the units (eight per floor) were 4 in gypsum tongue and groove block. That fire came barreling ten feet out the windows but never breached adjacent apartments or the floor above. Would that the WTC have been built that well.
                All arguments on controlled demolition rest on the question Why? As previously pointed out the metre act of the planes hitting the towers guaranteed Afganistan.

                Don’t ask what other skyscrapers collapsed of fire without pointing out what others were hit by airplanes and were of this type of unique construction. Apples and ranges do not mix.

              • SK
                “Wish WTC was built that well”

                It was, SK.

                It had numerous other severe fires and a bomb and it survived fine.

                And your contention about “why” is totally incorrect.

                As I said to USWep,

                To claim gravity does not work because you do not understand why a man would drop a rock is wholly unreasoned.

                First the explanation to why WTC 7 fell comes first, THEN the motive will be come clear.

                Going backwards is pushing a string – it won’t work.

              • On the contrary, BF, I don’t think dismissing a motive is a wise move at this point. You are suggesting a vast conspiracy, with vast risks and consequences. I don’t think it is out of the realm of reality to say “why”. It seems that rather than admitting that the motive angle is lacking in this conspiracy theory, you want me to simply accept that it will become evident eventually, once we know what happened. You seem to “know” what happened. Per you, the laws of physics have told us the answer about what really happened, yet I see no motive suddenly coming out that would explain it.

                You offer a wonderous story, but a wonderous story requires a wonderous reason. That, sir, you still have not given me. Smart men don’t take risks that are unnecessary. It would take smart men to pull off what you suggest. Therefore, you have a gaping hole in your theory.

              • USWep

                On the contrary, BF, I don’t think dismissing a motive is a wise move at this point. You are suggesting a vast conspiracy, with vast risks and consequences.

                No, I am NOT suggesting anything vast – a vast conspiracy is not necessary at all – perhaps no more than 5 or 10 key people.

                Risk and consequences exist regardless – they are on both sides of the equation thus cancel out in any analysis.

                To work on motive before explaining the cause can only lead to mistakes.

                If I for example demonstrate a motive FOR YOU, USWep, confirm it in my mind – I would be manufacturing circumstantial and fantastic claims to prove me right – since I already know you did it.

                In doing so, I will pollute the truth of what really happened.

                And this is exactly what is happening – but in reverse.

                The fear of the implication – the fear of the motive of that implication – is so severe that people will pervert the laws of physics to avoid it, and miss the truth.

                First comes “What happened?” then comes “who”.

                I don’t think it is out of the realm of reality to say “why”.

                But one cannot know “why” until one knows “how”.

                For example, if I said the “why and who” of all of 9/11 is was the government – and simply assume I have such evidence that is independent of whatever may happened on 9/11 – I have memo’s and orders say.

                Knowing it was the government- does that explain the ‘how’??? Not at all. Was it explosives? Something else? Pre-cut core? Who knows?

                Know it was the government changes not one wit the need to discover the ‘how’. Knowing it was the government tells us nothing.

                Knowing it was Mossad tells us nothing on the how.
                Knowing it was the CIA tells us nothing on the how.
                Knowing it was ISI tells us nothing on the how.

                BUT

                Knowing it was nano-thermite does tell us who – it had to be a group who has access to that technology – and it would not be goat herders in Afghanistan.

                Knowing it how, such as pre-installed, eliminates a huge swath of “who”.

                Focusing on motives and who – heck, it could be you! – solves nothing but waste energy and time and focus.

                It seems that rather than admitting that the motive angle is lacking in this conspiracy theory, you want me to simply accept that it will become evident eventually, once we know what happened.

                There are plenty of motives for a lot of people! Contrary to your position here, there is a line up of potential evil doers from a host of characters.

                But knowing how does eliminate a huge swath. Like pointed out, you would be immediately eliminated if it was nano-thermite, etc. – even if you had a real motive (which you do not, just an example case).

                You seem to “know” what happened.

                No.

                As I specifically said, I am speculating – nothing more.

                Per you, the laws of physics have told us the answer about what really happened, yet I see no motive suddenly coming out that would explain it.

                Correct. It is premature to speculate motive until the truth is found.

                If it is nano-thermite, then the list shortens to less than three fingers on a hand.

                If it is something else, then the list maybe different.

                You offer a wonderous story, but a wonderous story requires a wonderous reason.

                Stories don’t matter which way they are presented because the outcome is determined by the writer.

                Truth does not work that way. No matter how I want the truth to end, the truth is the truth to the end.

                Find the truth first, and the story makes itself.

                That, sir, you still have not given me. Smart men don’t take risks that are unnecessary.

                They take risks.

                It would take smart men to pull off what you suggest. Therefore, you have a gaping hole in your theory.

                Are you suggesting there are no smart men willing to take risks?

              • No, I am saying that smart men are not willing to take unnecessary risks. And it seems to me that the risks associated with your theory are unnecessary because the will of the people was turned the second those planes hit.

              • USWEp,

                But for you to make such a claim means you know what risk they are willing (or not) to take

                But how do you know?

                You are looping yourself.

                You are making wholesale speculation on what some men of your fantasy may or may not do, and in that, make claims about whether these fantasy men would do it.

                And in your fantasy, your fantasy men wouldn’t do it.

                Time to come home to reality.

                Figure out the “how” first – will tell you the who (or a list of who’s who) and THEN you can measure their risk vs reward factor.

              • No I am not making a fantasy. Smart men do not take unnecessary risks. That is just the way it is. You are a smart guy. You take risks that are calculated and known. You don’t take unnecessary risks. No smart man does. And it would have to be a smart man to pull off what you are claiming. You are great at arguing a point and making it appear that something doesn’t make sense. But stop making my statement more than it was:

                smart men do not take UNNECESSARY risks. Demolition of the towers would be an unnecessary risk.

              • Kill 3,000 to save 30,000 (if the towers toppled)? That sounds like just the kind of trade-off progressives/statists like to make. 😉

              • Demolition of the towers would be an unnecessary risk.

                This is wholly speculative and imaginary.

                To make this claim, you need to know who and what these ‘men’ are thinking.

                Since you do not know who these ‘men’ are, it is impossible to assign a motive.

                You therefore cannot know whether what the risk is, let alone its worth.

                Therefore, your claim is wholly unsupportable and irrelevant.

              • Mr. Flag,

                The one thing that is missing, or at least I haven’t seen acknowledged, or even spoken of much, is the buildings sprinkler system. Do you have any input on this at all? I’m sure that an active system, in the lower floors would have some effect as to the heat from the fire.

                Just a thought.

                G!

              • Yes, that is true G-Man

              • It is no more speculative or imaginary than assuming that someone was willing to take that risk no matter what it was. I can’t explain what happened on 9/11. I am not the guy who built or designed the towers or building 7. Was it a freak occurrence or a planned demolition? I certainly don’t have the answer. I don’t dismiss the conspiracy theory. And I am completely at ease with the implications of it being true. It won’t wreck my paradigm one bit. I have no fear of you being right or wrong. I simply ask the questions that come to my head.

                I am currently not on the 9/11 conspiracy bandwagon. I don’t fault those of you who are. I simply find the entire theory too complicated to pull off, but that is nothing more than my opinion. At this point, someone could prove the theory wrong or right and I would simply shrug and say, “OK”. I wasn’t attempting to be argumentative BF, or even attempting to refute your “evidence”. I simply wanted your take on the reason why an unnecessary risk would be taken by smart men. You aren’t in agreement that it was an unnecessary risk, so I guess we are at an impasse on that portion of the discussion. I see your points. I don’t know if you see mine, but that is OK too.

                USW

              • Hey USW!

                Hope you and your family are well today! 🙂

                What risk would it be for an electrician who is given a job to run wires (nano-thermite cord) that looks just as normal as anyother wire. The job, he is told is for a project for aditional computer lines, say in the hundreds, and must run them a certain way due to the weight of “a new kind of computer cable”. His compamies job is to run them to specs and another company will do the hookups.

                I say this because it is currently happening where I work. Electricians are pulling wires that equal 4 inches in diameter, and I asked what they are for. They said they don’t know, just paid to run them by the blueprints given, and someone else is contracted to do the hookups.

                Looks like regular wire, known electrical contractors putting them in place, noone is none the wiser, and most won’t even ask.

                Just a thought. I’ve watched the towers fall many times, I still wonder how it weakened (by fire) equally, to fall straight down. It would be neat to have an old erector set and test the fire theory, my best guess, knowing how to blow things up, is that something that tall would weaken at the point of impact the most, causing it to fall, beginning at it’s weakest point, say left or right, thus taking a huge weight off the rest of the structure. I can see Flag’s point here. Now to find an old erector set! That would be cool to test it using torches in the primary area and see what happened.

                When I was a kid, I wanted to grow up to be a warrior, now I’m grown up and wish I was a kid! 😆

                G!

              • Hope you are well also G.

                Some very good points and ones that I had not considered. As I said to BF, this is an area I know only enough to be dangerous about, so I generally don’t attempt to be the authority on the towers. What I am an expert on is explosives. So I follow the claims about different agents and compounds with a keen interest, but I usually stay out of the way.

                I have watched the towers fall many times as well and it certainly gives me enough pause to wonder whether something odd is going on. What I don’t know is what the answers are. But your input on the electricians being contracted is a new twist for me that offers a plausible explanation for some of the questions that float through my head.

                Much appreciated.

                USW

              • I’ve been watching wires being put in place for 8 years, almost nonstop. I’ll take pictures at work and send then to you. I’m waiting for some drop ceilings to actually fall from the weight. It’s amazing. Look for the pictures.

                G!

              • Black Flag,
                If you were going to do a planned demolition on the WTC towers, how would you do that? Since the structural core was 87′ x 135′ and it contained alot of steel and concrete, you couldn’t just plant explosives at it’s bottom, because even if you blew out 100′ vertical feet, the tower would just drop 100′ and then…tip over?

                So you’d have to blast the core on – let’s say – the 5th floor. And then 1 second later, blast the core on the 20th floor, and then 1 second later, blast the core on the 40th floor, etc, until you reach to top. This way as it drops from each blast, you blast out more of the core to continue the drop straight down…

                Or would you start the blasting at the top, and then blast points downward as the top starts to fall?

                Ok, this is a very simplified version of implosion, but you get the idea.

                What’s the tallest building to ever be imploded?

                Your theory is explosive were used, but has a study ever been done on how to use explosives to implode WTC 1 & 2? Could you even implode a building that tall, or would you need to deconstruct it?

                And since you’re so adamant that a steel building has never failed due to fire, why would someone be so concerned about it and go to all that trouble?

                Has anyone checked the Sears Tower for explosives?

              • Todd

                If you were going to do a planned demolition on the WTC towers, how would you do that?

                Ask a demolition expert.

                Are you suggesting it could not be demolished by explosives?

                Since the structural core was 87′ x 135′ and it contained alot of steel and concrete, you couldn’t just plant explosives at it’s bottom, because even if you blew out 100′ vertical feet, the tower would just drop 100′ and then…tip over?

                Which is probably why it went top down instead of bottom up.

                …just exactly like it did.

                Or would you start the blasting at the top, and then blast points downward as the top starts to fall?

                As one with limited experience of explosives, I would suggest this makes the most sense.

                But, a demolition expert would be the one to ask.

                And they were.

                Dutch Controlled Demolition expert 9/11

                What’s the tallest building to ever be imploded?

                J.L. Hudson Department Store

                (3w’s).controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807

                ..for the video.

                And, gee, looks like WTC 7

                Your theory is explosive were used, but has a study ever been done on how to use explosives to implode WTC 1 & 2?

                Yes.

                Quote:
                And it was well-known that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. Plans were made in 1989 to completely dismantle the WTC not only because of the asbestos problems but also the electrolytic corrosion problems. Apparently, the plans were dropped because they were considered prohibitively expensive. The only reason the building was still standing on 9-11 was it was too costly to disassemble floor by floor. There is a persistent report on the internet that either the state of New York or the EPA had ordered the dismantling of the WTC. And dismantling the WTC would not result in the recovery of insurance proceeds since it would not be a casualty.

                Could you even implode a building that tall, or would you need to deconstruct it?

                I would deconstruct it.

                But recall, this is not my speculation at all.

                My speculation was in response to a disaster that threatened the toppling of the towers.

                And since you’re so adamant that a steel building has never failed due to fire,

                Adamant?

                How about factual?

                why would someone be so concerned about it and go to all that trouble?

                Because toppling – as almost happened in 1993 remained a serious threat.

                Has anyone checked the Sears Tower for explosives?

              • Has anyone checked the Sears Tower for explosives?

                I don’t know

              • Black Flag,
                So what is your theory on how the buildings were intentionally destroyed?
                Where was the thermite applied, how was it detonated, etc? Who made the call?

                In order for it to be a conspiracy, you have to have a theory on how it was carried out. 😉

              • Painted on Nano-thermat – which is explosive.

              • Black Flag,

                An analysis of WTC collapse be demolition experts

                http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

              • I’ll review.

                I won’t bore you with the dozens of other experts that state the opposite – you can find those yourself.

      • Black Flag,
        I didn’t expect my elevator/core fire “theory” to hold up. It was just piecing some interesting “facts” together. While doing a little bit of research I learned a lot more about the buildings and potential causes for the collapse.

        I also watched all kinds of cool videos of buildings burning and being imploded – always fun to watch!!

        You dismiss all scenarios presented here, usually by picking on one or two details. Yes, I know the details are important, but in my experience, open “what if” discussions lead to new information and the best answers/solutions. The way you “attack” all possible scenarios seriously discourages discussions.

        You have been very adamant that the exterior walls of WTC 1 & 2 were not part of the vertical support, but I posted several sources that said otherwise. Any comment on that?

        You have been very adamant that a steel building has never failed due to fire, but there are three possibilities on 9/11. But you dismiss all three because it’s never happened before.

        But 9/11 was a very unique situation. And especially WTC 7. The demolition expert explained it – it was hit by thousands of tons of steel falling from hundreds of feet above that caused major structural damage, and was left to burn for more than 6 hours because there was no equipment available to fight the fire. So your dismissal because “a steel building has never failed due to fire” is irrelevant, because fire was only part of the damage done to WTC 7.

        I asked for your theory on the collapses, and you gave a 7 word answer:

        Painted on Nano-thermat – which is explosive.

        I find this theory lacking a few details.

        From someone who likes to pick apart the details of others’ theories, it’s not surprising you don’t provide any. If you provided details, your theory would become very easy to pick apart.

    • USwep,

      The amount of time and energy that would go into such an endeavor literally makes it pure folly to think of that as the reality (purely my opinion, of course). It takes 2 weeks of 3 crews and 24 hour a day wiring to do an unconcealed wiring to bring down a building from demolition

      Do you see the electrical wiring, the network wiring, the phone wiring, etc. in the office building you have worked in? Of course not.

      No special effort is required to “conceal” anything.

      You fall into Bob’s assertion – that there was a ‘time limit’. But no such limit had to exist. If it took a year to do, so what? They started a long time before 9/11.

      I will stay away from arguing the specifics </blockquote

      But it is in the specifics that the important stuff exists.

      One can generally make specious claims to the reason they fell – like the pancake, warp, progressive collapse, zipper theories all do.

      They look at buildings falling and say “well, they pancaked” by the general visualization.

      But it is in the physics that says “Nope, couldn’t do that”. It is in the chemistry that says “Nope, couldn’t do that”. It is in the architecture design of over 1 million man years that says “Nope, that isn’t it either”.

      In it in the specifics that the failure of the ‘official’ story appears.

      Further, one doesn’t even have to deal with the towers, if they are too uncomfortable because of the potential implications.

      One only needs to look at the flight recorder data, released by the NSTA, that simply does not match the flight path of Flight 77.

      This one is in your face obvious. There is no way a reasoned man can ignore this as anything but a ‘smoking gun’, especially when the FBI and the NTSA both are using bureaucratic closed circles to avoid providing answers.

      But here, is an obvious conspiracy in the flesh. This was purposely released. It is not the flight recorder of flight 77 – it cannot be for the flight that hit the building because it does not fly the route as the real flight 77.

      Where is the ‘real’ flight recorder?
      What flight is this recorder from?
      When was this other flight done and why?

      You see, USWep, it is in the details that the real questions come up, not in the specious generalities.

      I would like to know what you think the REASON would be to take such steps.

      You are well aware of false flags. Hitler is more famous for them, but every nation – including the USA – has used them to push the country to war.

      WHY would someone go to the trouble of spending literally years doing clandestine wiring and spending hundreds of millions of dollars to get the explosives and specialty equipment in order to make the two towers and building 7 collapse?

      I think I’ve offered a reasonable explanation in the past.

      The 1993 bombing came within two car lengths of toppling the WTC.

      I surmise that the powers-that-are felt that the 3 largest towers of the WTC complex – should they topple would cause untold destruction and potential deaths and injuries in the tens of thousands.

      I suspect that in follow-up meetings regarding the potential of disaster, a plan was approved to pre-wire the complexes to bring down in some controlled fashion should such a risk present itself again.

      This is why I suggest such installation could occur over a long period of time. This wasn’t a ‘rush’ job – but a methodical, well planned and coordinated – and purposeful.

      The buildings coming down was unnecessary.

      Again, another specious argument. You do not know why they may have wanted to bring down the buildings.

      Just because you do not know their motivation does not mean they lacked a motive

      It could have been to exaggerate the crisis.

      It could have just been that they felt the building or some parts were under threat of toppling.

      WTC7 is where all the FEMA/New York Emergency/CIA/FBI/SEC/Ports Authority(Owners of WTC) etc. offices were – where the documentation about the buildings would be stored.

      But there motives do not matter at the point. First, understanding the TRUTH behind the collapses is vital.

      Any leap beyond this is merely pointless speculation and as such a tactic, it is being used to prevent investigation.

      Anyone smart enough to pull off a 9/11 conspiracy action would have been smart enough to understand that the risk of exposure was too great with little ROI if adding a massive (larger than any in history before) controlled demolition and attempting to fool the world into believing that it was real. Not to mention that WTC 7 really had nothing to do with anything, so why would they have done that building as well.

      But history proves you wrong.

      They were more than willing to kill as many Americans as necessary to cause a war with Cuba (Northwoods).

      Considering how immaterial Cuba is to the benefit and welfare of the USA, your argument here that a situation considerable larger by many orders of magnitude is insufficient for them to false flag.

      Therein lies the problem for me. I simply see no motive for the massive increase in risk. Which means I am not yet believing in any of the controlled explosion theories. I hope I get some rational answers to these thoughts. I would like to understand better.

      USWep – the failure of your reasoning (and similarly to SK, Bob, and others) is to ignore the evidence as it is (the fact and truth of the laws of nature) in favor of trying to understand human motives.

      Example: You deny a rock will fall to the ground due to gravity because you do not understand why someone wants to drop the rock.

      Like a detective, USWep. First the evidence, then the ‘what happened’, then the motive, then the case is closed. You are starting on the wrong end of the question.

      For you, I think is merely a misunderstanding of how this study should occur.

      But I do feel that most are afraid of the implication should the truth be known.

      They would rather live under the evil they do not know then face the evil directly.

      Because of that fear, they refuse to move beyond even questioning least it expose what they fear the most.

      • BF…I have read most, if not all, your posts. Are you a for real believer in that the towers were an inside job? Not theory, hypothesis….but a true believer in this?

        • Depends on what you mean “inside job”?

          This could mean:
          (1) they wired them in prep for a disaster, it came, they blew them as planned – and may have made a mistake, and are covering their tracks.

          (2) they knew, let it happen and then blew them to cover tracks.

          (3) they participated, made it happen, then blew them to cover tracks.

          (4) they did fall by some hereto unknown, never seen since the dawn of history with convoluted sequence of events. Someone’s competence is under question, so they are covering their tracks.

          People lying, ignoring, whitewashing, and covering up is purposeful. What is the purpose – I cannot know…. yet.

          However, like I described once about empty space providing 90% of the mass of the universe….

          …simply because I cannot see the matter that makes this mass, I know it exists because of the influence it provides to the matter around it that I can see.

          • I think people need to recognize the differences between the events occuring that day:

            1) Flying the planes into the towers
            2) WTC 1 + 2 collapsing
            3) WTC 7 collapsing

            Evidence supporting #3 being done intentionally doesn’t really directly say anything about #1, for example. As BF pointed out, it could just as easily be something like “we were afraid the towers would topple after the planes hit so we brought them down”. Or maybe they were “wired” in some fashion to come down and the plane fires set it off accidentally somehow.

            But there are certain key pieces of evidence that can’t be explained away, so they just get ignored and shoved under the carpet because no one wants to think about what it might mean.

    • I'm learning! says:

      I wonder the same thing. Why? I am an expert on engineering, governments, physics, etc. However I do very distinctly remember thinking how it was unusual that the buildings collapsed they way they did, but it was lucky for the people in NY that it happened in that way. Not experienced enough to question that it happened that way, just thought it could have been worse!

      I like conspiracy theories for entertainment. I never did believe that they could be pulled off on a grand scale either. Has anyone here read David Baldacci? In particular his book called The Whole Truth. That book got me hooked on him as an author and I have little by little trying to read his other books. Yes, it’s fiction, but all I kept thinking was how easy it would be for us – people of the entire world – to be enraged over what a single video forwarded on to some people on the internet showed. And throw in a few well placed murders to connections that could look suspicious and you are on the verge of World War 3. All because a weapons company was tired of a lack of wars and wanted a little more business. There were a few key people who put things together that didn’t make sense, but 99% of the world had no clue. Very few people involved in the plot were connected. Each had a little role – separate from others. Most of the people that knew anything were eliminated through some accident.

      So why would someone want to do something as drastic as 9/11? Could it be the other little random acts of violence didn’t wake anyone up to the level that something like this did? The other day many discussed the new world order – it would take 3 world wars before it would happen. Could that group want to get going on war #3?

      There are several in this blog (myself included) that believe in a large conspiracy regarding CO2 and global warming. Why is it easier to believe some things but not others?

      • Learning,

        Good question.

        I believe it is because things like Co2 and Global Warming – though political, do not risk the political machine.

        It is easy to pass off the idiocy of current administrations as ‘a mistake’ with AGW myth – people will get fired and life goes on.

        But if such questions actually challenge the whole machine – there is greater fear.

        Most Americans are taught that their government is them, it works for them, the citizen is the boss, “for the people, of the people, by the people” mantra.

        What happens if the truth is – it isn’t for them, they are not the boss but the tools, and its “from the people, for the few, by the elite”.

        • I'm learning! says:

          But even very knowledgeable people within this blog can believe one theory but not the other. I truly hope that it wasn’t a plan within our government. Points you have made in the past certainly make it seem like it wasn’t Bin ladin’s doing either. And seriously, if the first bombing was that close to collapsing the buildings and skyscrapers are wired to implode if necessary to save a larger disaster, why not just say it? Save everyone they can, when you are reaching the point of no hope, clear everyone out that can still be saved, clear the streets and let it go. Although I suppose that will cause another nightmare with lawsuits and second guessing if they should have waited or not. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t! Where is utopia? I want to move!

          • Learning,

            “why not just say”

            Who would work in a building wired to blow? And what if that building was the most expensive and biggest money loser in New York already?

            And – yeah, the legal side would be massive if everyone knew.

            I can see why silence would be the tactic.

            • I'm learning! says:

              I was thinking about that last night. Not only that but if the it is public knowledge that a building is wired to implode, then any nut job might decide it would be a fun challenge to tap into that some day.

              I was tired yesterday, I think the lack of sunlight for a week sandwiched between zero or below temps and the endless stream of blizzard this year is taking it’s toll. I need sunlight – I must be lacking Vit D! But it’s been a few years since we had a winter like this so I suppose it’s overdue!

      • Hi Ya’ll!

        I’ve been intrigued by this discussion on numerous occasions. While I will stay away from what is being presented, since I really have nothing further to add, I will say that I have been looking deeper into the “false flag” issue. I’ve been out of town for a few days, and will continue this research, in hopes of sharing during one of the next couple “Open Mic” nights.

        Keep up the good work, this stuff is really fascinating, and both side of the table are working hard. Maybe, the truth will come out that all can agree too!

        G!

    • Bottom Line says:

      “Blueprint For Truth”

      Part 1 of 13:

  2. USWeapon Topic #2

    California School District Bans Dictionary Over ‘Oral Sex’ Definition

    A California school district has added a new book to the controversial list of literature that is considered unfit for young eyes.

    It’s the dictionary.

    The Golden State’s Menifee Union School District has yanked all copies of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary from its shelves and is investigating the classic American text for containing “age-inappropriate” words.

    The trouble started when an inquisitive student got lost somewhere between “oralism” and “orang” and found a rather recent entry to the lexicon: “oral sex,” a phrase that has been in common parlance since 1973 but still makes many parents fairly hot under the collar.

    Menifee administrators chose to leave their lexicons languishing after a parent at Oak Meadows Elementary School complained about a child finding the definition, which reads, rather clinically: “oral stimulation of the genitals.”

    Now, more than 200 years after Noah Webster slashed the Us from British colours and honours in his very first American dictionary, this Riverside County school district 60 miles southeast of Los Angeles is looking to slash a little more.

    Menifee, which is composed of 9,000 students between kindergarten and 8th grade, is forming a committee of principals, teachers and parents to pore over the book and determine whether it’s fit for young eyes. It could take a while: the unabridged edition available online contains over 470,000 entries.

    Read the rest of the article at Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584010,00.html?test=latestnews

    I am interested in hearing what everyone has to say on this. This isn’t some fantasy. Although it sounds like a ridiculous example of what extreme censorship would look like. This is actually happening in the United States of America. Well, California, which is kind of like America anyway.

    As baffling as the story is there is the fact that they are actually putting a committee together to go through all their books to eliminate anything that they think might be offensive or inappropriate. If the definition of oral sex got the dictionary banned, can you imagine how little books will be left for the poor souls in this school district. Imagine all of the classic works of literature that will simply be too inappropriate. I am certainly one that says if the people of this school district are in favor of this type of absolute madness, who are we to have anything to say? But this was absolutely too maddening to not include it for all to see.

    • STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES

    • This seems to be the norm these days. Parents can’t be expected to have responsible talks with their children. I think it is idiotic to ban something because of bad or crude language. If it offends you, teach your kid not to say it…

    • USW…the best dictionary that I have is the Websters Collegiate Dictionary….why? Because it has everything in it including slang, colloquialisms, sayings….every day usage things.

      Oral sex definition…puuleese. It is censorship pure and simple and it is a phrase commonly used. After all…it is California.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @D13 – hmmm – justifying why the “English” we all speak isn’t really English anymore? Its only ‘everyday’ to you if you use it everyday – and that does not make it right for you to assert that people who don’t want to be exposed to it should be exposed to it. If I don’t want my son exposed to Playboy magazine I will hide them somewhere other than under my bed. 🙂

        • Justifying???? Hmmm…not really. But, I guess since we do not speak the King’s English any longer…..

          Now, would you pull the National Geographic from a school because it had pictures of naked breasts in them from tribal Africa?

          Seems to me, where education is housed, that a dictionary that has all forms of the English language from slang to old English, would be an addition. It seems to me that taking away of a photograph of the sculpture of David because it is anatomically correct would then fall in the same realm…

          But what do I know.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Hmmm – parents taking a vested interest in what the public school system exposes their kids to – unclear why that is inherently a bad thing. I thought the folks on this site were proponents of making education more local – the couple of opinions thus far do not seem consistent with that.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Ray,

        Making education more local = good.
        Protecting your own children from bad influences = good.
        Banning books and other acts of censorship = bad.

        Does that reduce your confusion any?

      • Ray

        Let me confuse you even more. If it were a book about oral sex, as in how to, I would support banning it. But that relates to the issue of what should be taught in school, not the content of the teaching material. And of course age plays a role. Thus the need for local control.

        But it was a Dictionary, a book full of words and phrases common to our language.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @Peter and @JAC – I live a stone’s throw from Amish country – also heavy in Mennonnite’s – if you recall the Nickel Mines Amish School massacre – that is a couple stone’s throw from my house. I’m not sure why you assert what I, or you or anyone should determine what content or delivery mechanism should be used in their schools. You’re asserting that someone external to the educational relationship (teacher-student or, for homeschoolers – parent-child) should determine what is best for that relationship. Please do explain why that is a good thing.

        • Or, if it was speech like this given to students:

          Trustee’s speech to kids turns into sex talk

          HITCHCOCK — What was supposed to be a motivation speech to a collection of sixth- through eighth-grade girls at Crosby Middle School instead turned into an explicit sex talk, including descriptions on how to perform oral and anal sex, Hitchcock school officials said.

          http://galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=09d6b6ece4ddb7b7

          • Richmond Spitfire says:

            Whoa…and I thought I was a bad@ss in 6th grade when I looked up the word “fart” in the classroom “reference material” section. Come to find out that it was a small explosion between the legs. Of course, I milked that one for all that I could to get many laughs from my peers.

            There is a difference between a student “looking” for information vs. a studen being “lectured” on information.

            Some kids will be totally happy with the definition in the dictionary; whereas some kids will want to obtain more information and refer to the Encyclopedia. The kid will determine how his or her thirst is quenched. As long as the reference material is presenting fact (not opinion), I could care less.

            And to have this presenter (in Kathy’s article) to ask students to keep the information a “secret” is unacceptable. In my opinion, that’s the WORSE action by the presenter….(as if the subject material wasn’t bad enough).

            Oh…Hi all!

            Best Regards,
            RS

            • My dearest Spitfire.

              My heart is now racing faster and the world is back in balance.

              I missed you so.

              Do hope all is well with you and yours.

              Big,Big Hug my dear southern belle.
              JAC

      • Ray, my friend…I am all for the parents being involved. However, I do believe that there is reason to be used. If it was a PTA that got together and the parents and the school board were in agreement…..I would say nothing because the whole process was in agreement.

        But is a select few or the one required a dictionary to be thrown out….that borders on censorship in my view.

        Therein lies my difference.

    • Just wait until the parent that complained finds their kid on the urban dictionary.

    • Another censorship story that’s getting press is the Tim Tebow commercial scheduled to run during the Super Bowl. Apparently Tim’s mom had some health issues while pregnant with him and was encouraged to get an abortion; she chose not to and wallah….here is Tim today. The lefties are going nuts saying this, presumedly, pro-family commercial should not be broadcast.

      I don’t get it – the party of diversity can’t even allow a family commercial to be aired? That someone watching who is contemplating having an abortion might see it and change their mind and that is threatening to your position? That being pro-choice doesn’t mean the choice to have the baby?

      • Buck The Wala says:

        To be honest, this is completely a non-story to me. So what if there will be a pro-life commercial run during the Super Bowl? Seems like a massive waste of money to me as a 30-second spot is not going to change anyone’s mind anyway. Also, if a pro-choice group is really all that incensed about this, let it raise the money and run its own 30-second spot; though again, seems like there would be much better uses for the money to me.

      • Non issue and not a pro life argument…I see it as a pro choice argument. The woman had a choice to make and made it. End of story.

    • Good morning. Living in CA this really comes as no real suprise to me. I stated the other day how nonsensical (if this is mis-spelled I apologize. My dictionary has mysteriously vanished) and bass ackward this state can be. While words like “bling-bling”, “frenemy” and “staycation” are added to the “English” language, people find a way to complain about a phrase that is in every single sex education book I have ever had to read through growing up. Also, while CA is trying to include same sex education into schools curriculum, I would assume this phrase would come into the classroom even more frequently.

      • There’s a great story which may or may not be apocryphal. When Webster first compiled his dictionary, a group of old ladies came up to him one day to thank him.

        “For what?” Asked Webster.

        One of the ladies replied, “for choosing not to include any profanity in your dictionary.”

        To which Webster responded, “I hadn’t noticed that, but I do find it interesting that you made a point of checking.”

    • Bottom Line says:

      California schools (and society in general) are completely nuts.

      I saw a kid get assigned to speech therapy because his teacher didn’t like his southern accent. WTF?

      This is the same people that ban smoking in public(even walking down the street)using the excuse that it’s bad for the atmosphere, …while driving an escalade.

      Has anyone seen LA smog?

  3. USWeapon Topic #3

    eHarmony Agrees to Settle California Lawsuit Claiming to Discriminate Gays

    The online dating service eHarmony has agreed to settle a California lawsuit that claimed it discriminated against homosexuals.

    Under a proposed settlement filed Tuesday in Los Angeles Superior Court, eHarmony will link its straight and gay Web sites and allow people to use both without paying double fees. Plaintiff’s attorney Todd Schneider says the company also agreed to pay about $500,000 to an estimated 150 Californians to settle the class-action suit, plus around $1.5 million in court and attorney’s fees.

    The company didn’t admit any wrongdoing.

    A judge must approve the settlement. A court date is scheduled for Feb. 3.

    Read the original article (reprinted here in its entirety): http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584002,00.html

    I have a couple of thoughts here. As many of you are aware, I am a vocal supporter of gay rights. I support all rights, no matter the person. But I have a lot of acquaintances who belong the the GLBT community. And the idea that they are not afforded the same rights as everyone else in this country is personally offensive to me. That they are treated as less than equal is no less egregious than the treatment of blacks before the civil rights movement.

    HOWEVER, I am absolutely blown away by this short article. I will freely admit that I was unaware of this lawsuit before reading this short article above. So I began to research it a bit more because before I offered an opinion, I wanted to make sure that it wasn’t something blatant such as eHarmony refusing to hire gays or something like that. As I dug, I found a little bit more information on this in an article from the San Francisco Gate:

    The Pasadena company, which says it uses a scientifically developed questionnaire to help people find “relationships that last,” didn’t offer gay, lesbian and bisexual matchmaking services on its primary Web site, eHarmony.com, until last spring.

    As a result of a 2008 settlement with the state of New Jersey, which sued the company for discrimination, men and women seeking same-sex matches were redirected from eHarmony to an affiliate Web site, Compatiblepartners.net.

    A separate class-action civil rights lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles in 2007, saying that eHarmony violated California law barring businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation.

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/26/BAGB1BNUE5.DTL&tsp=1

    So with my limited understanding of the lawsuit, I offer my thoughts, with the hope that some of the California readers who may have been seeing more of this story will weigh in and offer some thoughts. I especially hope that Ellen, who is both gay AND in California can offer a bit more insight, as she is always so well thought out in her analysis.

    I don’t like this lawsuit a single bit. And the reason is that I don’t think that a private company should be required to offer a good or service at ANY point. eHarmony is a business. They have a service that they offer because they feel that there is a demand for that service that they would like to profit by providing. They built a business model, marketed that model, and sold their service. That, my friends, is NOT discrimination. That is offering a service. Now they are being told that they must provide an equal service for the gay community, not because it will offer them the profit or return on investment that makes a business thrive, but because the government decided that they have the right to force a service to be offered by an existing company rather than allowing the market to devise its own solution.

    And that is the key to how things are supposed to work, and perhaps a little insight into why California is so lost. If there is a profitable market for a gay and lesbian matchmaking website service like eHarmony, then some ambitious soul out there will create a site that serves that demand. THAT IS HOW A MARKET IS SUPPOSED TO WORK! Instead, some overzealous activists decide that since no one has yet offered that service as effectively as eHarmony has done for straight couples, they will file suit, and claim that eHarmony is discriminating by failing to do so. So what is next?

    Will all gay bars in San Francisco be required to cater to and advertise equally to straight folks? Will Ben and Jerry’s Ice cream be sued for failing to offer a certain flavor of ice cream? Perhaps Lexus will be sued for failing to offer a purple colored car, after all the purple loving folks shouldn’t be discriminated against. Personally, I am planning to sue the makers of Blu-Ray for failing to offer the movies I like in that format. Lovers of “Howling XXIV: My Sister knew a Prostitute Who Was a Werewolf” should not be discriminated against.

    Failure to offer a service is not discrimination. Businesses offer the products that they think there is a demand for. That is how businesses work. They offer shirts in whatever color they think will sell, and it isn’t discrimination to not offer every color of the rainbow. eHarmony has no more obligation to offer gay couple matching than a restaurant has to offer a certain dish. Since McDonalds doesn’t offer pizza, are they discriminating against Italians?

    Where does this lead, it leads to government dictating everything that private industry does. Want an example? How about China, who yesterday mandated that 2 of every 3 movies shown in public theaters must be movies made in China. No matter what the public wants to watch, the government dictates what is available. That is the road we are traveling down. And it is petrifying to think that Americans have become this fracking idiotic.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      USW, I fully agree with you. BUT, I wonder if what helped get the company into trouble was this >

      “The Pasadena company, which says it uses a scientifically developed questionnaire to help [people] find “relationships that last,””

      Are not gays [people]? I know I am being picky but they would no doubt use it as an argument.

      • Note: [people] not [all people]

        Hasn’t eHarmony turned certain people away? As in not gay people? I thought I heard that somewhere. If that is true, this argument falls apart.

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          I don’t know, it’s all new to me.

        • Kristian Stout says:

          I had a cousin who was turned away after severasl attempts to match him because they couldn’t find a match. He’s as straight as the day is long.

      • For reference, eHarmony does reject people other than those who are gay.

        http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2005-05-18-eharmony_x.htm

        Lesbians and gays are not the only ones unwelcome on eHarmony; Warren says he rejects 16% of those who take his patented personality test because they’re poor marriage prospects.

        Weed-outs include people under eHarmony’s 21-year-old age limit and those whom the site decides are lying on the test. It also removes those believed to have certain types of emotional instability, such as “obstreperousness” (they just can’t be pleased) and depression, because “depression is pretty highly correlated with emotional problems,” Warren says.

        “You’d like to have as healthy people as you can. We get some people who are pretty unhealthy. And if you could filter them out, it would be great. We try hard. And it’s very costly.”

    • AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      And a reminder to those that think the task of resurecting our constitutional republic is going to be easy once we get congress fixed.

      The rot runs all the way to the roots.

      Businesses in this country need to STRIKE.

    • USW:

      I fully agree with your assessment. The Company should have fought the law suit. There are other dating services that only cater to beautiful heterosexual couples. I guess the old, fat and ugly will file a law suit and claim discrimination. Why would any Company want to do business in the USA? Too many laws, regulations and other BS to put up with.

      • Forgot to check box.

      • I agree with you Birdman. Why would anyone want to staart a business in the USA? I’ve had dozens of people ask me to sew for them. I get many compliments on the dresses I make for myself. This community is a good example of a government controlled existance. If someone wants to have a business they must follow the rules: we can’t use the post office to ship supplies for our business because its an Army post office. We have to obtain a license that ensures we don’t compete with AAFES. You are responsible for income taxes if the income puts you over the threshold. You must serve everyone equally, meaning those PITA (pain-in-the-ass) people MUST be served. If they file a complaint on you, you could have your license revolked. In a place this small, it doesn’t take long to learn who the PITAs are.

        That’s just for starters. Suffice to say, sewing for others is more trouble than its worth. I refuse to do it.

    • Maybe it was economics for the company. They paid 1.5 mil in court fees for a 500,000 settlement, if they kept fighting it the court costs would have definitely gone up. Why not make the issue go away and re write your programming so that you can collect more money from more people.

    • USW….it is ludicrous. I wish I knew what else to say. I did some research on it and it points to State Laws. Ok….cool. The State of California has passed a law that makes it illegal for a business to do that. Not a Federal mandate but a state mandate.

      I choose never to open a business in a State that would have a law like that. I see no other options. Any law that usurps private industry is wrong. I have a real problem with anyone telling me who I can hire or not hire. However, even Federal Laws are easy to circumvent.

      Texas is an “at will” state… and as long as we do not violate a Federal Law, we can do just about anything that we want. The State employment laws mirror the Federal Mandates. If I do not like the color of your tie..you are history. That is my choice and should be MY choice. I run the risk of losing or not hiring good people but that is also my risk.

      Long answer to an easy question….do not open in California. Or New Jersey or wherever the laws do not benefit you or take your rights.

    • Ellen Spalding says:

      I agree that companies should be allowed to turn away anyone they dont want to take money from. What I had issue with is that they had set up to websites, one for the straight people and one for gay people. So if I was to click on the gay person section I would be taken to another site. From what I understand from the lawsuit that I could find, is that if they had just turned away the gay community outright, then the case would really have no merits under the law. But what hung them up is that they charge the first fee on the original site then charge another fee on the “gay site”. But in the end would not really offer any services on that second site.
      There is not much information on this suit out there.

      Ellen

      • From what I recall, they originally had no service for gays. The sues and eHarmony set up a site for them. Then they sued again to incorporate the two sites into one.

        The thing that gets me is this: I’m ok with discrimination if, IF, there is a reasonable cause for it. So if you’re hiring a waitress, I would be against discriminating based on appearance, but if you’re hiring a waitress for Hooters, I would approve of discriminating based on looks, follow? So, here’s where I have a problem with this case. eHarmony spent a substantial amount of time and money developing their matching system. The criterion were for heterosexual couples, the dynamics of which, I have to assume, are different than for homosexual couples. As such, there is a real difference in providing services to gay and straight couples, so the discrimination is justified. It’s not like, say, Gap only selling to one group or the other when there’s no viable reason. This first suit effectively forced them to create a whole new business. But once they have this other site, there is no reason to keep them separate that doesn’t boil down to “they’re separate because gays are different,” and that doesn’t cut it with me.

        So to conclude my ramble, lawsuit #1: total BS, lawsuit #2: A-OK.

        • Ellen Spalding says:

          I would be okay if

          1) They decided outright they they choose not to cater to the gay community. Fine that is your right, your business.

          2) if you have decided to make a site for the gay community,but they have to pay for both websites when in real they are only using one. That bothers me.

          If that makes any sense. I think they were better off just turning gay community away and fighting those grounds instead.

          • I agree with you Ellen. They should have just politely directed gays to a site that can better serve them.

            • Agree, and they should have one the first law suit (see, we can agree sometimes).

              But, and here’s the but, once they have two sites, there’s no acceptable reason for keeping them separate and/or charging double. Maybe you could make a case for marketing reasons to keep them separate, but charging double? Nope.

          • 1. See, no. That’s discrimination (the bad kind). Imagine if Gap just one day said, we will only sell to heterosexuals. It would be the same thing – it’s discrimination without a viable reason. It’s only ok, if and when there is a good reason for the distinction. Just saying “I choose not to cater to the gay community” is not acceptable. But “I choose not to cater to the gay community because I have designed this matching criteria which only works on heterosexual couples and I do not wish to undergo the added expense of developing a homosexual version which may or may not generate a return on investment” – well that’s perfectly ok in my book.

    • Well now.. I guess, once again, it falls to me….

      OK, playing devil’s advocate: Let us imagine a restaurant. It has, let’s say, two entrances and two separate lunch counters. It makes homosexuals use one and everyone else can the other one. Now is this starting to sound familiar to anyone? Anyone? How ’bout you, D, you’re old enough..

      • Buck The Wala says:

        Good point if CA state law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.

        Being CA, I believe it does.

        • I just cannot see this as discrimination. Prop 8 yes, but this no. My example: In Sacramento, there are only a couple of dance clubs that do not allow people under 21. One of these is a gay club. If my wife wants to go dance, and not deal with people half her age, this is her club of choice. Now while the music bumps and people dance, the video screens play erotic video clips (not hard porn). All of these clips are man/man or girl/girl. Do I, as a straight male, have the right to go after the club because there are no hetero video clips even though I know this is a gay club?

          • Sorry. Hit submit to soon. Lastly, and most unfortunate, if the shoe were on the other foot in this one, it never would have made it to court.

          • Buck The Wala says:

            That is a completely different situation.

            Based on Mathius’ description of the cases, eHarmony created a second site to cater to homosexuals but forcing homosexuals to pay twice as much for their services as heterosexuals. CA state law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Hence, a law suit.

            Your argument deals with your wife going to a night club that caters to homosexuals and having to deal with homsexual images. No discrimination there, unless of course she is being charged more because of her sexual orientation.

          • You would, I think, benefit from reading my response to Ellen (above).

            The gist is that a discrimination which is reasonably justified should be considered ok (the atmosphere of the club benefits from targeting one demographic, homosexuals, and including other demographics is damaging to that end, therefore, the ‘discrimination’ is justified).

            Conversely, if they discriminate without cause, say against tall people, where no justification exists for it, then I have to say that it is unfair. Does this make sense?

            If we were to run with your example, we would have to take it a few extra steps.

            Step 1: the gay club gets sued for discrimination. (in my view, they are catering to a specific demographic, and to do otherwise is problematic, so it is justified in doing so). However, for whatever reason, they lost the suit.
            Step 2: They open a new club next door catering to homosexuals. This club is ‘separate but equal.’
            Step 3: They are sued for keeping them apart. In my view, it makes sense to keep them apart since the demographics don’t necessarily want the same thing (I don’t want to see male/male action (female/female is ok with me though)). Also, there is an advantage to knowing the orientation of a person you approach in this situation – it avoids confusion and awkwardness. So there is justification for keeping them separate.
            Step 4: They combine the two due to the lawsuit. Now nobody’s happy with the dancing experience and the club fails.

            The difference between the scenarios is in steps 3 and 4. The website can avoid the awkward situations, and it can provide viewer specific content (no male/male action on the website when I visit, but yes when someone else does). The the justification for keeping them separate evaporates. Further, when combined, nobody’s experience is lessened. People won’t leave the site, the business doesn’t fail.

            • I do agree with the second lawsuit. The double charge was a dumb idea and someone should have seen this coming for trying to pull it off. My main problem is lawsuit #1 should have never been entertained and the second never would have occured.

              • #1 absolutely should have been entertained. Absolutely. And then dismissed just as absolutely.

                #2, I agree, they should have seen coming and headed off before it got that far.

      • Ouch, Matt…is your D referring to D13? If not, ignore the rest…

        D13 is old enough to remember separate seating arrangements, riding in the back of the bus, separate drinking fountains, giving up a seat in favor of another..etc.

        D13 also thinks that was horrible but would support discrimination of any kind if it were total. If I did not want someone in my restaurant…then I have the right to refuse service.

        However, in this case, and I agree with Ellen, is that if E harmony did not want to service the gay community….ok. But once the decision was made, then service it equally. Simple, really.

        As to law suits….not ok with either of them.

        • It was referring to you, arbitrarily, since I knew you’d bite at being addressed. 🙂

          I don’t know though, I see where you’re coming from, but there has to be a reason for the discrimination, otherwise it’s arbitrary and unfair. What if a company were to decide to hire only men? What if a company wouldn’t service black people? What about a company that charges double to Latinos? If there’s a reason, I’m ok with it. But just because you’re private doesn’t give you the right to discriminate against people based on arbitrary judgments – give me good, solid reasons. This country decided during the civil rights era that we wouldn’t tolerate that. Period.

          And remember, sir, that the separate counters were only after they were forced to have a black counter – before that, it wasn’t ‘separate,’ but rather ‘whites only’. There are a lot of parallels here.

          In eHarmony’s case, I feel they had one at first: their matching system was designed for hetersexuals and they didn’t want to incur the expend to develop a second system. Once they had that though, how can they justify double charging?

          That said, I wouldn’t sue them. I’d boycott and destroy them in the press. Then I’d get people to sign up on a list somewhere to show just how much business they’re missing out on. Someone will fill in the gap, and other companies would take the hint. But that’s just crazy old me, I guess.

          • I have not been able to find a source for the double charge. Is it in fact true? The second site was set up to settle the New Jersey case, so it appears the first complaint facilitated the California case. The New Jersey case began in 2005 and the California case began in 2007, eHarmony has been paying legal fees for 4 years ouch.

          • Hey Matt….Of course I would bite on it…can’t pass it up. However…Ok, I can accept your definition of what you feel discrimination is….mine is a little different.

            If I choose not to serve Purple Raptomese…then that is my choice. If I choose to serve men only, that is also my choice. If I choose to serve only one eyed, one horned, flying purple people eater’s (that aged me) again my choice. Now you may not agree with me on my choices but it does not give you the right to impose your belief on me. That said, you would be free to boycott, write, and otherwise organize non violent mayhem (oxymoron?)against me and that is your choice. (remembering that I am playing with Raptor and Feline genetics).

          • Mathius-

            [blockquote]
            I don’t know though, I see where you’re coming from, but there has to be a reason for the discrimination, otherwise it’s arbitrary and unfair. What if a company were to decide to hire only men? What if a company wouldn’t service black people? What about a company that charges double to Latinos?[/blockquote]

            You answered yourself later in the post:

            [blockquote]
            That said, I wouldn’t sue them. I’d boycott and destroy them in the press. Then I’d get people to sign up on a list somewhere to show just how much business they’re missing out on. Someone will fill in the gap, and other companies would take the hint. But that’s just crazy old me, I guess.[/blockquote]

            See, we don’t need big bad government to tell us what to do.

    • If a government can tell someone who they can and cannot associate with, that someone is a slave.

    • Bottom Line says:

      I call total bullsh*t.

      If you’re gay and don’t want to date straight people, then don’t go to a site that hooks you up with straight folks.

      DUH!

      Filing a lawsuit is outrageous.

      I am so sick of “special” rights as opposed to “equal” rights.

  4. USWeapon Topic #4

    Hoyer: House And Senate Discussing Reconciliation For Health Care

    Laying out the way forward on health care reform Tuesday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) confirmed that Congress and the White House are discussing the use of reconciliation to “correct” the Senate legislation with a supplemental bill that would require only a simple majority in the upper chamber.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) avoided using that particular parliamentary tactic for health care last year, partly because reconciliation bars the inclusion of policy provisions that don’t affect overall cost. But since the Senate has already passed the fundamental health reform bill, reconciliation could be used to fast-track a bill that simply amends cost provisions in the existing legislation — if the House votes to pass the main Senate bill as is. The alternative, crafting a compromise bill in conference, would require 60 votes in the Senate again.

    The reconciliation proposal has gained serious attention in the week since Senate Democrats lost their filibuster-proof supermajority with the election of Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy’s former seat. At his weekly press briefing Tuesday, Hoyer said the use of a supplemental health reform bill is “certainly” one of the top four options being considered.

    “The last option that’s being discussed is to try to correct the Senate bill with a majority vote in both the House and the Senate and then pass the Senate bill as corrected or pass the Senate bill with the understanding that it will be corrected by another piece of legislation,” Hoyer said. The other three options he listed were: giving up on health care entirely; passing a “lesser form” of reform; and rubber-stamping the Senate bill with no supplemental. “There may be other options, but those are certainly four that have been discussed,” Hoyer said.

    Read the rest of the article at the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/26/hoyer-house-and-senate-di_n_437177.html

    I threw this one in at the last moment. The 4th topic that was in this position was instead moved to a full article, as I found that I had a lot to say on the subject. So that is coming soon. But this one struck me as we are once again getting a full admission from a sitting leader in Congress that they are willing to bend whatever rule they must, take whatever liberties they deem necessary, in order to get their agenda through with or without the consent of the American people.

    This should send a strong message to every American that the United States Congress does not have a single worry over what the people want or what the people say. The loss in Massachusetts was a statement at the very least. The most blue state in the land elected a Republican who ran primarily on being the 41st vote against health care. And the exit polls overwhelmingly showed that the number one decision driver was the health care issue. So the most blue state in the country doesn’t want this health care bill.

    Rasmussen’s polls show that over 60% of American voters do not want this health care bill. We have watched all the back room deals, closed door meetings, special exemptions for SEIU and other unions, and everything from threats to outright bribery are used to get a health care bill passed in each chamber that the American people no longer believe is the right way forward. The American voters are speaking louder than ever and saying “NO” to the health insurance reform bill that is currently in Congress. And the response from the “representatives” in Congress….

    F**K YOU!

    They are looking at every crooked and back door way they can find to pass this legislation regardless of what the people say they want. They have all but ruled out the one thing that the majority of Americans seem to believe is the right path (even though I personally oppose it): Scrapping the abomination of a bill they have and starting over. While Hoyer admits that this is one of the 4 options (or simply says so to appease voters), he outright says that it is an option that they have basically taken of the table.

    Allow me to make a little prediction. If the Democrats in Congress use a back door option like reconciliation, the people of the United States will go batshit crazy and rebel. The American voters are already angry. They already feel that their voice is largely ignored, but they cling to a hope that Congress might actually be hearing them when they elect a Republican in Massachusetts. If Congress ignores them again, and uses a technicality trick to pass a bill that a majority of Americans disagree with vocally, they will be sealing their own doom. Their violent march towards fasciolism by shoving the liberal agenda down America’s throat may have already done them permanent harm. But it was a flesh would. Using the nuclear option to pass this health care bill would me a mortal one.

    • MEMO TO: Mr. Reid, Ms. Pelosi, progressives et al.

      GO AHEAD. I DARE YOU.

      YOUR WORST NIGHTMARE
      JAC

    • If they do reconciliation, won’t they have to take out the provision about pre-existing conditions? Seems to me like that was the life-line for the bill.

      Personally, I hope they start over now that they actually have to make reforms that are reasonable and not just shove the liberal ideal through.

      Like that will actually happen…

    • I can see some of them going for this, they have already figured they will not be re-elected, so what do they have, as individuals, to loose? Will history paint them as “visionaries”, who made America into what it was always meant to be? A Progressive, workers paradise. Mmmmmm, mmmmm, mmmmm

      http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2010/01/25/pelosi-and-reid-plot-secret-plan-for-obamacare/#more-710

      By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann
      01.25.2010

      Highly informed sources on Capitol Hill have revealed to me details of the Democratic plan to sneak Obamacare through Congress, despite collapsing public approval for healthcare “reform” and disintegrating congressional support in the wake of Republican Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts.

      President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid all have agreed to the basic framework of the plan.

      Their plan is clever but can be stopped if opponents of radical healthcare reform act quickly and focus on a core group of 23 Democratic Congressman. If just a few of these 23 Democrats are “flipped” and decide to oppose the bill, the whole Obama-Pelosi-Reid stratagem falls apart.

      Here’s what I learned top Democrats are planning to implement.

      Senate Democrats will go to the House with a two-part deal.

      First, the House will pass the Senate’s Obamacare bill that passed the Senate in December. The House leadership will vote on the Senate bill, and Pelosi will allow no amendments or modifications to the Senate bill.

      How will Pelosi’s deal fly with rambunctious liberal members of her majority who don’t like the Senate bill, especially its failure to include a public option, put heavy fines on those who don’t get insurance, and offering no income tax surcharge on the “rich”?

      That’s where the second part of the Pelosi-deal comes in.

      Behind closed doors, Reid and Pelosi have agreed in principle that changes to the Senate bill will be made to satisfy liberal House members — but only after the Senate bill is passed and signed into law by Obama.

      This deal will be secured by a pledge from Reid and the Senate’s Democratic caucus that they will make “fixes” to the Senate bill after it becomes law with Obama’s John Hancock.

      But you may ask what about the fact that, without Republican Scott Brown and independent Democrats such as Joe Lieberman, Reid simply doesn’t have the 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a Republican filibuster that typically can stop major legislation?

      According to my source, Reid will provide to Pelosi a letter signed by 52 Democratic senators indicating they will pass the major changes, or “fixes,” the House Democrats are demanding. Again, these fixes will be approved by the Senate only after Obama signs the Senate bill into law.

      Reid also has agreed to bypass Senate cloture and filibuster rules and claim that these modifications fall under “reconciliation” and don’t require 60 Senate votes.

      To pass the fixes, he won’t need one Republican; he won’t even need Joe Lieberman or wavering Democrats such as Jim Webb of Virginia.

      His 52 pledged senators give him a simple majority to pass any changes they want, which will later be rubberstamped by Pelosi’s House and signed by Obama.

      This plan, of course, is a total subversion of the legislative process.

    • Buck The Wala says:

      Best idea I’ve read yet to pass health care reform. Be curious to hear everyone else’s views. Sounds ingenious to me:

      “President Obama and Vice President Biden should call a meeting late at night (say, 3 a.m.) in the Oval Office. The 51 most liberal Democratic senators would be invited to this meeting—Lieberman and the Blue Dogs would be excluded, as would all Republicans. This would not be publicized ahead of time. When all 51 senators are present, along with Obama and Biden, then Biden would act in his constitutional role (“The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate”) and call a session of the Senate right then and there. Since Article I stipulates that “A Majority of each [house of Congress] shall constitute a Quorum to do Business,” this impromptu meeting would fulfill the constitutional requirements. The Senators would mark up the House bill. Then they would hold an up-or-down vote on it immediately afterward. Only a majority of the quorum would be required to pass the legislation; the Republicans and Blue Dogs would be completely irrelevant. In order to safeguard against future challenges, each senator should be made to sign a notarized affidavit certifying his or her presence and vote. Also, the meeting would have to be transcribed (“Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same”). After this, the House would pass the adjusted bill, which would be far more progressive than the Senate’s previous effort. Subsequently, having passed both houses of Congress as required by Article I, it would be signed into law by President Obama.”

      • Buck The Wala says:

        Sure they risk all being voted out of office. But I would vote for their reelection based on chutzpah alone.

      • The joke is probably on you Buck. It’s probably already been done like that we just don’t know it yet.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          What joke? I’m all for it! 🙂

          Though what I’d really want is for the Dems to force the Repubs to actually stand up there and conduct an old-fashioned filibuster.

      • Why not just arrest all conservatives and ship them to another country so you won’t have to consider dissenting views at all…

        • Buck The Wala says:

          All I want to know is why is it that a vote of 52 Senators, a MAJORITY of that body, is considered tyranny?

          Reconciliation is not a dastardly plot that undermines the legislative process and the constitution. It is part of the legislative process.

          • I think your answer might be that more than 52 American citizens dont want the bill

            • Buck The Wala says:

              Unfortunately that is not how our government works. We have an election and vote in representatives. Those representatives then vote on legislation.

              The fact that more than 52% of Americans don’t want the bill (which figure itself is up for debate as the majority of Americans do want health care reform) is irrelevant. As I said, if the Dems ‘push’ this through and pass this legislation, the American people can always vote them out of office.

          • I say let’s have a referendum vote on the bill and see exactly how it would go.

          • Yes sir….it is part of the legislative process…. and I say do it. But not for your reasons. I WANT the dems to do reconciliation. I also WANT the bill passed and for it to be the hardest thing to ever hit the American public. I WANT to see the Cap and Trade jammed through and made law. I WANT all Cadillac plans taxed and I WANT the banks regulated to the max and I WANT the trickle down effect to the poor and middle class of all the pass through costs there are going to be. I WANT the rich taxed into oblivion so there is no more revenue coming in to the gov’t. I WANT the unemployment to be pushed to 25 % and for the government to control everything. Please, Congress and Obama do this. I WANT the stifling of the American culture and business’ and a dependent class of peons. Please, Congress…do this. Eliminate charities and take over education. TAX TAX TAX…do it…please.

            For this is the only way that we will get our freedoms back because D13 will be safe and will lead the revolt.

          • v. Holland says:

            Personally-I think we the people are already being represented by a small number of people who don’t have to actually follow their constituency-I personally think it is advisable for there to be a larger than just a majority to pass important legislation-it makes it much more likely that the will of the people is actually being represented.

          • Reconciliation is intended to pass budgetary items that the country must have in order to function.

            Using it for something else is a dastardly plot that undermines the legislative process. How else would you describe a procedure that gets around the right of other senators to filibuster?

            Your partisanship is blinding you. Think about what you would do if the situation were reversed and repubs wanted to reconcile something through… Why you want to allow congress to override the wishes of the country is beyond me (well it isn’t, but we’re being polite here).

        • They won’t ship them any further than the nearest FEMA camp!

          😉

        • Truth Seeker says:

          Congress was elected by us. All meetings and phone calls should be recorded and made public as WE the TAX payer funds the government. We paid for those meetings and phone calls, shouldn’t they be made public? The ONLY time it should not, is when it is Classified and about National Security. I think the biggest problem people have with Congress is that you can only only beleive what was released by the MSM and not actually hear what goes on in the backroom. This applies to BOTH parties.

          Are we not entitled to know everything that happens in our PAID for government?

          Also, everybody knows it is unconstitutional to force people to buy anything. Car insurance isn’t, as it is not neccessary to live life using a car. However if the Health Bill was to pass as it is, just being alive in the USA would gaurantee Taxes, Forced Health Insurance, and Death.

          I also move to strike the fact that I beleive that only TAX payers should be allowed to vote. WHY? Because we are the ones that funds the government and funds all these bills and programs that get passed. I have nothing against people that don’t make enough money to pay taxes, but you really do not have any stake in the government. If people are so inclined to vote, then they need to make enough to pay taxes. There are all ready to many zombie voters that don’t educate themselves and all they care about is who is going to bus them in and feed them once they vote the way they are told.

          The Truth Hurts.

          • Buck The Wala says:

            The Truth hurts!? What truth – that you believe in prohibiting people who do not pay taxes from voting? That’s not truth; that’s your (misguided, to me) opinion and you are entitled to it.

            But paying taxes and voting are two very separate issues. You believe that someone who does not earn enough should not have the right to vote as that person does not have a stake in what government does? Please explain how that’s the case.

            • Truth Seeker says:

              Buck, if you are barely making any money, and you are all about going after “big buisness” because you did not apply yourself or get a good enough education, who are you likely to vote for? Someone that promises to give the “poor man” everything and take from “big buisness” and “the rich” or the one that spouts free thinking ideas like “free markets” and “capitalism” and “fair tax”?

              There is no incentive to work hard if you always get a free ride.

          • Congress was elected by us. All meetings and phone calls should be recorded and made public as WE the TAX payer funds the government.

            Someone tried.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/us/politics/27landrieu.html?ref=us

          • Truth Seeker,

            If people who pay taxes are the only ones who are allowed to vote, I’m pretty sure you and I and most Americans would not be paying any taxes pretty quickly.

            The wealthy/elite would be more than happy to fund government if they are guaranteed to have control of that government.

            You also have to define “pay taxes”? Are you referring only to federal income taxes? What about state income tax? State and local sales tax and property taxes? Even if you rent, the property taxes come out of your rent.

            Where do you draw the line for “Pay Taxes / Get to Vote”?

          • Bottom Line says:

            I almost blew a gasket when I first read Truth Seeker’s reply.

            What really got me was:

            ” …but you really do not have any stake in the government.”

            Ground control to Truth Seeker.

            Ground control to Truth Seeker.

            I was born here

            I live here.

            I’ll probably die here.

            I hope to one day raise kids here.

            I served this country.

            It’s mine, and I gladly share it with 306 million of my friends.(…305,000,455 rather)

            We all live here and have a stake…taxed or not.

          • D13 – The only people who don’t pay taxes are homeless people who never spend any money, use any water, electricity, etc.

          • The only people who don’t pay taxes are homeless people who never spend any money, use any water, electricity, etc. so your proposal would be moot anyway.

  5. A Puritan Descendant says:

    Here is my own topic. I am sure my thoughts on this are not popular at all and I can crtainly understand that.

    Corporations (an individual can be a corporation), non-profits, unions (all which can be groups of individuals), and individuals can now run political ads right up to election day. This ruled by our United States Supreme Court 5 – 4.

    I support this ruling. First because I think it is Constitutional. I see nothing in the Constitution that would limit this right to just individuals.

    Not only was it wrong to restrict freedom of speech, it was censorship. Why should you be limited to what sources of information you are allowed to hear? Not all corporations/organizations are right wing. You will be able to see/hear both points of view. Why should the MSM be the only Corporations to push their agenda right up to election day? Could the MSM have been silenced next?….. The answer is YES as pointed out in the ruling. Are you to stupid to make ‘correct’ decisions, so you must be limited in who, when and what you can listen to? Are you so dumb you can’t see why the group creating the ad would be trying to persuade you? Or is it just everyone else that is to dumb and needs protection from the ‘evil’ Corporations and Unions, and you are the only one with a brain?

    I hear the argument that corporations can be controlled by other countries. This is true but more than one Senator are already trying to write a law prohibiting foreign corporate involvement. I would have no problems with this prohibition myself, but the constitution might not limit free speech regardless of where you are from. Isn’t this still censorship?

    Some have said the court over ruled 100 years of precedence. So instead we continue past errors rather than correct them? Is it not better to fix it when we have the chance rather than continue down the wrong path? I say Screw precedence when precedence is wrong to begin with. Nowhere in the constitution does it say ‘precedence’ is supreme.
    Isn’t ‘precedence’ a convenient way to make sure no-one can fix an injustice??? The only ‘precedence’ we should be forced to adhere to is the original meaning of the constitution.

    The best part about this ruling, is that it well help balance the socialist propaganda we are endlessly subjected to by the MSM, and this is what the Left is so afraid of !
    The Left need not worry about being drowned out by Corporate ads over the airwaves, they can easily pool their money and purcahse their own ads. Many Corporations will not want to be seen picking sides less they lose half of their customer base. The left will not sit back and allow themselves to be forced off the airwaves. So long as the government stays out of it, it will work itself out. So please don’t freak out, give America a chance.

    Barney Frank is already looking for a way around this ruling. He wants to write restrictions on what Corporations are allowed to do as a part of Corporate law. I notice he failed to mention Unions! The Battle continues…….,

    as Puritan quietly tip – toes ( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~) out of the room to a secure location.

    • Puritan.

      Whenever someone invokes “Corporation” they are invoking an artificial construct which has the legal rights of a real person, but created to avoid the full consequence of actions that the real people do in the name of this artificial person.

      Where you, as a real person, may decline to undertake certain actions due to risk, personal or financial, a corporation exists to allow you to take those financial risks that you would not normally do.

      The consequence of this is highly risky behavior without (severe) consequence ensures more risk taken.

      Thus, the decisions people take on behalf of artificial people are significantly more likely to be ones of a poor nature than if they had to make the same decision themselves.

      These decision, then, pollute economic and political calculation.

      My position – corporations – artificial persons – are immoral as a structure.

      Anything they touch will be tainted.

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        I hear you and understand you. It will take a while to absorb completely, but you seem to make an excellent point.

        Now if only this post will go through for me….

        • I used to own corporations to do my work – even a President/CEO of a public traded company for a short time.

          Dismembered or sold them all.

          Almost everyone thought I was crazy.

  6. A Puritan Descendant says:

    Testing again. Two posts fail to go through.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      OK, I have been typing into wordpad and copy/pasting into here that ‘might’ be part of the problem for me. Later.

  7. A Puritan Descendant says:

    I try another browser to get this to submit.

    Here are my thoughts on another topic. I am sure my thoughts will not be popular and I can understand that.

    Corporations (an individual can be a corporation), non-profits, unions (all which can be groups of individuals), and individuals can now run political ads right up to election day. This ruled by our United States Supreme Court 5 – 4.

    I support this ruling. First because I think it is Constitutional. I see nothing in the Constitution that would limit this right to just individuals.

    Not only was it wrong to restrict freedom of speech, it was censorship. Why should you be limited to what sources of information you are allowed to hear? Not all corporations/organizations are right wing. You will be able to see/hear both points of view. Why should the MSM be the only Corporations to push their agenda right up to election day? Could the MSM have been silenced next?….. The answer is YES as pointed out in the ruling. Are you to stupid to make ‘correct’ decisions, so you must be limited in who, when and what you can listen to? Are you so dumb you can’t see why the group creating the ad would be trying to persuade you? Or is it just everyone else that is to dumb and needs protection from the ‘evil’ Corporations and Unions, and you are the only one with a brain?

    I hear the argument that corporations can be controlled by other countries. This is true but more than one Senator are already trying to write a law prohibiting foreign corporate involvement. I would have no problems with this prohibition myself, but the constitution might not limit free speech regardless of where you are from. Isn’t this still censorship?

    Some have said the court over ruled 100 years of precedence. So instead we continue past errors rather than correct them? Is it not better to fix it when we have the chance rather than continue down the wrong path? I say Screw precedence when precedence is wrong to begin with. Nowhere in the constitution does it say ‘precedence’ is supreme.
    Isn’t ‘precedence’ a convenient way to make sure no-one can fix an injustice??? The only ‘precedence’ we should be forced to adhere to is the original meaning of the constitution.

    The best part about this ruling, is that it well help balance the socialist propaganda we are endlessly subjected to by the MSM, and this is what the Left is so afraid of !
    The Left need not worry about being drowned out by Corporate ads over the airwaves, they can easily pool their money and purcahse their own ads. Many Corporations will not want to be seen picking sides less they lose half of their customer base. The left will not sit back and allow themselves to be forced off the airwaves. So long as the government stays out of it, it will work itself out. So please don’t freak out, give America a chance.

    Barney Frank is already looking for a way around this ruling. He wants to write restrictions on what Corporations are allowed to do as a part of Corporate law. I notice he failed to mention Unions! The Battle continues…….,

    as Puritan quietly tip – toes ( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~) out of the room to a secure location.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      Yippee!, so Google Chrome solves the problem for me.

    • Puritan

      Good morning. On your topic I have some stuff to share created by others. First up is Professor Rob Natelson’s assessment on the ruling, which he provided shortly after. Form ElectricCity blog

      “January 21st, 2010 by Rob Natelson
      Here are some quick comments on the Supreme Court’s opinion in Citizens United v. FEC:

      * The Court voided a federal law insofar as the law banned independent election expenses by corporations and labor unions on behalf of a candidate. Direct corporate or union contributions to a candidate’s campaign were not at issue. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion.

      * The court split 5-4 on this point, with the justices of the so-called “liberal wing” dissenting. The dissent was written by Justice Stevens and joined by Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor.

      * On other hand, the Court upheld legal disclosure and disclaimer requirements as applied to corporations and unions. The court split 8-1 on this, with Justice Thomas dissenting. Justice Thomas reiterated the argument (accepted by the Court just a few years ago) that the First Amendment includes a right to anonymity, and he recited recent cases in which public officials and private groups had used campaign disclosure information to identify, harass, and injure donors with whom they disagreed.

      * Both the Court and the dissent focused on whether the federal law at issue violated the First Amendment. No one addressed what I consider a more fundamental question – one the Court has never adequately examined: Is the Constitution’s grant to Congress of power to “regulate” the “Manner of holding Elections” broad enough to include this sort of campaign finance legislation at all? There is considerable Founding-Era evidence that the answer is “NO.” If that is the case, the law should have been struck down without even reaching the First Amendment question.

      * Justice Stevens had an “original understanding” argument that, in my view, bordered on the frivolous. It was that the Founding Generation distrusted corporations and imposed extensive regulations on them, so the Founders would not have thought that corporations had any freedom of speech. However, the regulations in question were economic; Justice Stevens could point to no instance of a Founder suggesting that corporations were without freedom of speech. It is true that the Founders acknowledged the propriety of all sorts of economic regulations — and not just on corporations. But they singled out speech for special protection.

      * The majority overruled the 1990 case of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which held that independent corporate and union expenditures on behalf of candidates could be banned. There was much discussion about stare decisis — the principle that case precedent should be respected. The majority and dissent analyzed the issue at some length, as did Chief Justice Roberts in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Alito.

      * There is a special irony in the fact that the “liberal wing” of the Court voted to uphold this congressional regulation on speech. During the twentieth century, Supreme Courts with liberal majorities vastly increased the scope of the Free Speech Clause — (1) applying it against the states and in court proceedings, even though the wording of the First Amendment specifically says that it applies only to “Congress” and (2) extending “free speech” protection to such marginal activities as pornography and nude dancing. Now comes a case in which the very entity restricted by the First Amendment (Congress) tried to suppress speech at the core of the First Amendment (political speech) — but the liberal wing wanted to uphold the law.

      * Montana Code Annotated Section 13-35-227 reads in part:

      “Prohibited contributions from corporations. (1) A corporation may not make a contribution or an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party.

      “(2) A person, candidate, or political committee may not accept or receive a corporate contribution described in subsection (1). . . .”

      It seems likely that this section will have to be narrowed so it is limited to a ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates.

      * Most memorable quote from the case:

      “When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.” — Justice Kennedy

      JAC

      • JAC

        Question that might need answering. I am a member of the Teamsters Union. Not by choice, but because I took a job that was already a union position. I can say with all honesty, that I do NOT agree with the unions poitical views, but yet my union dues are used to present them without my agreement or approval. I find something seriously wrong here, as I must look deeper into it, what are your thoughts?

        G!

        • G-Man:

          You can pursue decertifying the Union. This needs done no sooner than 90 days and no later than 60 days before expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (about a 30 day window). The Union is protected during the 60 day contract grace period where negotiations take place.

          The NLRB will hold a decertification election. The NLRB will only hold an election if you can show that there is an interest in decertifying the union. The NLRB will require proof that at least 30 or 40% of the employees want to pursue this before they will come in and hold an election. A signed petition would probably work. Research this with the NLRB further.

          • Thanks Birdman!

            I know all about decert and how it works. The problem is, if that happened, the company would outsource hundreds of jobs, including mine, and we at least have their hands tied so they can’t. I doubt I’ll be working there long anyway, I’m contemplating relocating into the hills of Pa. I can’t tell myself this is were I want to be anymore, once the school year is done, life becomes choices for me, as I will no longer have any parental resposibilities to children, just my adult children, which is much better. After 24 years of doing things for them, it’s my turn! 🙂

            My point with the unions and politics, is if they can’t represent ALL members equally, which they can’t, they should not be allowed to be involved with any politics. Example: Teamsters boss says “We represent you”. Then says “WE endorse Obama”. That’s a contradiction big time! If you see what I mean!

            G!

    • Puritan

      Heres another: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/22/citizens_united/index.html

      You can come out of your hiding spot now. No problem from here.

      Of course the ruling has brought the whole issue of “personhood” status for corporations, which I find interesting.

      Best to you this very early morning
      JAC

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        Fine posts and articles JAC!, Thanks, I will be in and out, I have some work to do.

    • I find it distasteful that liberals oppose this statement and (supposedly) republicans support it. It is partisan politics as usual.

      I’m not sure how I feel about this ruling. On one hand, corporations have significant power to influence elections. On the other hand, why should the be banned from using their money to inform the public on a certain point?

      Interesting how Obama flipped on campaign finance reform and now calls this a “threat to democracy.” How much more did he spend that McCain? If the corporations supported him, do you think he would oppose this ruling?

      The level of corruption in this government is appalling!

    • Buck The Wala says:

      The reason this is a bad ruling is because Corporations are not individuals. Corporations are legal entities that are granted certain rights by the government. This does not make them individuals like you or me.

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        What about Unions?

        • Buck The Wala says:

          Same thing.

          • What about TV and Radio and Newspaper corporations?

            None of these were regulated by the law.

            Your off base today Buck. The person issue is really irrelevant.

            Speech is speech. A corp is an entity filled with ………..people.

            You want to tax it and regulate it, then it has a right to defend itself against attack and theft.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              JAC,

              Speech is speech and all individuals are guaranteed freedom of speech. But again, a corporation is not an individual.

              So what if a corporation is filled with people. Each and every one of those people are entitled to campaign, fundraise, donate money, etc. towards a political campaign. The corporation itself should not be granted that same right. No one is arguing that the corporation can’t speak out publicly on certain issues; of course a corporation has a voice through its Board. Corporations often lobby against taxes and regulations. I am not advocating stopping that practice here.

              But that is very different from being granted the right to contribute vast sums of money towards political campaigns.

              • Buck

                IT IS NOT DIFFERENT

                Speech is speech.

                A corporation is a group of people with a common purpose. As such that group has a right to act on its own interests.

                And by the way, you avoided addressing the issue of news organizations, TV, Radio and print. Under your opinion, should they not be banned from issuing editorials or taking positions as all other corporations?

                “Congress shall make no law….; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;………….”

                Gee Buck, I don’t see any qualifications put on that phrase regarding only people.

                They made the correct ruling.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                The corporation itself has an agenda. But that agenda does not necessarily comport with that of each individual employee, or person making up the corporation.

                To get around that problem, how about putting the issue to a vote of shareholders as they are the owners of the corporation. Each year SHs must vote on: 1) whether to make such political donations, 2) if so, to whom? and 3) in what specific amounts?

                Note: I am not advocating for such a vote by SH, but wouldn’t requiring such better comport with your idea of corporations being nothing more than a group of individuals endowed with first amendment rights?

                As for the press, I can see your point. But an editorial written on the opinion page of a paper is still very different from the vast financial contributions a large, multi-national corporation can make.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                I misspoke – substitute ‘owner’ for ’employee’.

                The employees might work for the corporation, but they do not own/control the corporation.

              • v. Holland says:

                Just a question-hope not a stupid one-but aren’t the parties themselves basically the same as a corporation or union when it comes to being able to run ads.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Not a stupid question at all. It raises some interesting issues.

                To me, the parties themselves are not the same as a corporation as they are an organization of like minded people who share political views and are joining together with the express intent to be a political organization.

                How is this the same as Sony? Or Apple? Or any other corporation?

              • Buck,

                But the owner is a person. And as the owner, the money made by the corporation is his money. Shouldn’t he be allowed to spend his money any way he chooses, including running all the ads he wants?

                The money doesn’t “belong” to the corporation, it belongs to the owner. If a corporation can’t be a person, it can’t own the wealth created by itself.

                Just a thought.

                USW

              • Buck The Wala says:

                USW, you may be right when talking about a small family business with a single owner. And even then I would argue for a distinction – as the single owner you can always take a distribution from the entity and then proceed to fund politics all you want.

                I am talking about the huge conglomerates that will be the ones pushing millions of dollars towards politics.

              • Buck

                I am not basing my argument on the corp. consisting of people.. I was pointing out the flaw in your position.

                My is this….Speech is speech.

                Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. THAT SIMPLE

                There are no qualifications or caveats or restrictions on how this is to be applied. It is a PROHIBITION on “abridging the freedom of speech”, period.

                Newspaper Editorial Boards,in most papers, provide their recomended candidates. The editorials in a paper and on radio/tv are controlled by the corp policies or those of the editor.

              • v. Holland says:

                Buck “Not a stupid question at all. It raises some interesting issues.

                To me, the parties themselves are not the same as a corporation as they are an organization of like minded people who share political views and are joining together with the express intent to be a political organization.

                How is this the same as Sony? Or Apple? Or any other corporation?”

                I understand the difference but it is still not an individual-if your argument is that only individuals should have this right than the parties shouldn’t have these rights and what’s to stop corporations from forming there own political organizations to bypass the law if it was still enforce-and why should the parties have such a choke hold as the information outlet when it comes to elections-seems like they have too much power already.

              • v. Holland says:

                Seems to me the argument is less about whether or not the influence comes from an individual but more about the amount of money the organization has-well the Parties have a lot of money and they have free reign.
                Their power and money make it almost impossible for an independent to run and win.

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        Buck, I read JAC’s arguments with you and I agree with him. I get this meaning from the first amendmant as it applies to this ruling… >

        ‘Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech’. And I take “no law” to mean “no law” including restrictions against corporations.

        I do however still respect opinion and think you make a good argument. I just think it comes up short.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          I’m sure we’ll have to agree to disagree on this, but here’s an article summarizing the ‘corporations are not full individuals’ argument that I am making:

          http://www.slate.com/id/2242210/

          • A Puritan Descendant says:

            Ok Buck,

            I think much of these arguments from slate just cloud what should be a simpler issue. For Example: “money is speech”, my brain doesn’t even work that way. I prefer to go back and try to determine what the founders intended.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              Ok then: Did the Founders intend for multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporations be entitled to expend vast sums of money towards swaying political elections?

              The “money is speech” argument isn’t a creation of Slate. Its a central undertone to these campaign finance cases.

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                Yes I know where “Money is speech” comes from. For me it just clouds my way of thinking.

                I think the founders intended as I stated >
                ‘Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech’. And I take “no law” to mean “no law” including restrictions against corporations.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Fair point.

                In my opinion we must look at the intent of the Bill of Rights — to safeguard individual freedoms and liberties. Assuming corporations are not individuals, they do not have any rights under the 1st Amendment.

              • Buck

                Individuals have the right to associate, organize and act as they deem fit, as long as they are not imposing/harming others.

                You can not condemn a group of people to non status when it is made up of individuals. Their rights extend to the group they form.

                This is philosophical relativism.

                Liberty and our rights only apply when I (you) like the outcome.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                The difference here is that a corporation is NOT a political organization. It is NOT made up of like-minded people who share political views.

                Rather, a corporation is a legal entity created by a wide range of people of different opinions and backgrounds who choose to join together for economic reasons.

                The 1st Amendment right to free speech does not contain explicit caveats, but the Bill of Rights was written to guarantee individual liberties. As the corporation is not an individual, it can of course be argued that the corporation is not entitled to free speech in this arena.

              • Buck

                “The “money is speech” argument isn’t a creation of Slate. Its a central undertone to these campaign finance cases.”

                And this is a fallaceous argument. It conflates definitions creating a false conclusion that is then required to support the next conclusion.

                Money is NOT speech. It is money. It allows us to purchase space or time to make our ideas known to others. Whether those words are spoken or put in print form is irrelevant. It is all speech.

                NO LAW ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                So if you believe money is not speech, then wouldn’t you be forced to find that a law prohibiting the use of money towards a political campaign would be constitutional, so long as the law allowed individuals to advocate on behalf of the political campaign?

                This scenario is taken from a link from the Salon article you had posted to earlier.

              • Buck

                Absolutely NOT.

                The control of spending money is a direct attack on the money owner to freedom of speech. It is a deliberate attempt to control or limit speech.

                This money is speech argument is ILLOGICAL.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                The argument that ‘money is speech’ is nothing more than a concised argument that spending money is a means of speaking.

              • Buck

                So now you have made my case.

                I knew you could do it.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Wait, allow me to finish…

                …Hence, money is speech.

                🙂

                Have a great night!

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      Buck over here, If enough people were outraged by this ruling couldn’t there be another constitutional amendment limiting corporations and unions?

      Though I would find it hard to vision a Constitutional amendment restricting the first amendmant.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        Of course there could be theoretically, but that doesn’t resolve the debate as to whether or not this was a good ruling nor the meaning/affect of the ruling.

        Wouldn’t be much fun if we just threw up our hands and said “Oh well, can always make a constitutional amendment” and ended debate right there.

        • Displaced Okie says:

          It might not be as much fun, but it sure would go a long ways to stopping the federal government’s over-reach…. 🙂

          • Bottom Line says:

            On January 14,2010 @ 11:23 A.M.,Displaced Okie said –

            “Cindy,
            I am in law enforcement, specifically federal law enforcement.”

            …which makes you an instrument of coercion for the federal government and their “over-reach”.

            If you truly want to stop it, you can start by quitting your job.

            Have a nice day.

            • Displaced Okie says:

              Ah, but our system allows for non-violent change to take place. So, I do what I can to educate other people and I vote–I am an active Citizen, I get involved.
              Like it or not Some of us do alot good, why don’t you tell the families of the kidnapped children I’ve helped to return, or the family members of the victims of the murderers I’ve arrested that I should quit. One could make the same arguement about USWep and D13, they were soldiers for the very same government. From the conversations I’ve read here, they were not always behind the government’s foreign policies that sent them across the globe and away from their families. That’s no different than me saying saying if you don’t like the U.S. then move.

              For the record. I don’t put people away, I simply assure that people accused of crimes, answer to the charges–It makes no difference to me what the verdict is.

              Now, I don’t agree with all the laws, but laws DO change, remember Prohibition?

              Please don’t let your anger and frustration with the current state of our government cloud your judgement in regards to all of the people who are in its employ.

              Stay safe and live Free,
              Displaced Okie

              • Okie

                Well said.

                Although you must admit it would be interesting if all the folks in govt who still think and feel as you do just up and quit.

                Personally, I want the govt filled with as many THINKING people as we can. In the end, it is they who might be able to prevent the last step of insanity. Note,I said “might” because even good people will act on “duty” in evil ways for awhile. Until the evil is to much to take.

                Hope your doing well there Okie
                JAC

              • Displaced Okie says:

                JAC,
                I agree it would be VERY interesting if we all quit. Although,
                It might look a little like then scene when Jerry Maguire left the ad agency.:)
                My read on most in Law Enforcement: Most know in their gut that something is not “right” with things at the moment, but you are correct, a sense of Duty is very powerful thing. So right now the good work outweighs the bad work. If things get worse will we prevent that last step or just go ahead and keep marching? I dunno.

                Hopefully most will do the right thing.

                Anyway, Have a great day JAC.

                Stay safe and live Free,

                Displaced Okie

              • Okie

                You to my friend.

                Watch yer top knot and keep yer powder dry.
                JAC

              • Okie

                I loved your Maguire analogy. I worked for a Federal Agency back when most of them would have left with Jerry. We had a mission. Take care of the taxpayers assets and spend as little of their money as possible.

                Today in that same agency they would not only stand and stare but you would be able to hear the “thank God he’s finally leaving” comments as the door hit him in the ass on the way out.

                That is what causes me to lose sleep. The bankrupt value system is far to deeply ingrained in the govt agnecies.

                Anyway, had that extra thought and wanted to share.

                Ta ta for now
                JAC

              • Good, this means Oakie and I can keep our jobs!

                🙂

              • Bottom Line says:

                DO – ” That’s no different than me saying saying if you don’t like the U.S. then move.”

                BL – Touche’

                Perhaps I’ve been a little unfair.

                I know there are some good folks in our government. I know there are good reasons for what you do.

                I.E. – finding/helping/saving kidnapped children

                Thank you for that, sir.

                DO – “One could make the same arguement about USWep and D13, they were soldiers for the very same government. From the conversations I’ve read here, they were not always behind the government’s foreign policies that sent them across the globe and away from their families.”

                BL – I understand the call to duty, as I myself have served overseas away from my ex-c*nt and family. Coincidentally, part of my service was in the same theater as one of D13’s tours(Bosnia)… Although my job wasn’t on the ground, but rather making sure the bombs got to the babies in a timely fashion.

                DO – Please don’t let your anger and frustration with the current state of our government cloud your judgment in regards to all of the people who are in its employ.

                BL – You’re right about my frustration with government (current and past).

                Forgive me for lumping you into the same category as all of those COINTELPRO Infra-Tard corrupt pieces of sh*t at the FBI.

                I know what they do when they think no one is paying attention.

                In that regard, my judgment is crystal clear.

                Stay safe and live free as well.

                Have a nice day.

              • v. Holland says:

                “my ex-c*nt” -come on man is that really necessary

              • VH, Go to bottom, I’ll tell you a story>

                G!

              • Bottom Line says:

                I have no idea where she is, and haven’t talked to her in over a decade.

                Otherwise, I would simply introduce you to her, and let you judge for yourself.

                Intelligent, sneaky, evil, and discretely promiscuous.

                (the worst combination)

                The C word is being generous.

                Sorry if you are offended by my foul mouth(fingers).

              • v. Holland says:

                I don’t think I care to meet her from the description 🙂 and I am not offended-I just cringe when I hear that word, you of course are free to say what you want -I am not the boss on this site-but I am free to object to the word but please understand it is not an objection of you.

    • See above – your first post.

  8. Weapon,

    G37, not G35S, but close enough for concern..

    Doesn’t your insurance cover something like that? Obviously not the new tire, but the new rim/wheel?

    I always worry when I hit pot holes too hard that my poor car will crack some tiny part I’ve never heard of and cost me an arm and a leg. But what am I going to do? Buy a Tata Nano instead?

    • Yep, close enough… The G37 is like the G35 in every way except a very slight body change. Interiors are identical from what I can see and the same engine and suspension.

      Will have to check the insurance stuff. I hadn’t really considered whether they would cover it.

      Hope you are well today. Watch out for those potholes. I know when being chased by the Raptah, which is the only variety that quick, you may be driving a bit too fast and hit one of the holes, and that could be tragic.

      • I don’t run from raptors in my car. I have a jousting pole on hand for just such an occasion.

        And a machine gun turret mounted on the roof (accessible by the sun roof) if I happen to have a passenger with me. This was not an option on the stock model.

        • I wish I would have known. I soooo would have gotten the machine gun option. It would make road rage so much more effective.

  9. From that conservative, not news network, FOX.

    The independent filmmaker who brought ACORN to its knees last year with undercover exposes was arrested this week along with three others, including the son of a federal prosecutor, and accused of trying to interfere with the phones at Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office.

    Federal officials did not say why the men wanted to interfere with Landrieu’s phones or whether they were successful. She has been in the news recently because she negotiated an increase in Medicaid funds for her state before announcing her support for Senate health care legislation.

    Calls to the cell phone of the filmmaker, James O’Keefe, were not returned, but his lawyer, Michael Madigan defended his client’s character.

    “We don’t have any of the facts yet, but James O’Keefe, at heart, is a really good kid,” Madigan said in a statement to Fox News. “We are looking into this further and are awaiting hearing from James directly.”

    O’Keefe, 25, already was in Landrieu’s New Orleans office Monday when Robert Flanagan and Joseph Basel, both 24, showed up claiming to be telephone repairmen, U.S. Attorney Jim Letten’s office said Tuesday. Letten says O’Keefe recorded the two with his cell phone.

    In the reception area, Flanagan, the son of acting U.S. Attorney Bill Flanagan in Shreveport, and Basel asked for access to the main phone at the reception desk.

    After handling the phone, “Flanagan and Basel next requested access to the telephone closet because they needed to perform work on the main telephone system,” Letten’s office said.

    The men were directed to another office in the building, where they’re accused of again misrepresenting themselves as telephone repairmen.

    They were arrested later by the U.S. Marshal’s Service. Details of the arrest were not available. A fourth man, Stan Dai, 24, was also arrested, but Letten’s office said only that he assisted the others in planning, coordinating and preparing the operation.

    Click here to read the affidavit.

    “This is a very unusual situation and somewhat unsettling for me and my staff,” Landrieu said Tuesday night in a written statement. “The individuals responsible have been charged with entering federal property under false pretenses for the purposes of committing a felony. I am as interested as everyone else about their motives and purpose, which I hope will become clear as the investigation moves forward.”

    If convicted, each suspect faces up to 10 years in prison, a fine of up $250,000 and three years of supervised release following any prison term, according the Justice Department.

    O’Keefe said “veritas,” Latin for truth, as he left jail Tuesday with suspects Stan Dai and Joseph Basel, both 24. All declined to comment.

    • I saw the clip with Shep where the story was breaking. He said it seemed likely that they were trying to investigate Landrieu for “ACORN hanky panky.” (implying, of course, that such ‘hanky panky’ might exist).

      Just like everyone keeps asking “why bring religion into it?” I’ll ask, “why bring ACORN into it?” It’s a story about someone trying to bug a seated senator sufficient for the news? Oh yea, it’s red meat. (Just wanted to make a point here..)

      I don’t fault fox for bringing it up, but I do think the focus is, and should stay, on the criminal actions of these individuals. So far, Fox seems to be on target.. (and yes, that was painful for me to say)

      • Matt,

        My thoughts on why bring ACORN into it, O’Keefe was a big hit for FOX on that story, if they did not mention it, they would be accused of trying to downplay who/why this is a big story.

        BTW, who do you trust?

        A new poll asking Americans whether they trust each of the major television news operations in the country finds that the only one getting a positive review is Fox News. CNN does next best followed by NBC News, then CBS News, and finally ABC News.

        49% of Americans say they trust Fox News to 37% who disagree. Predictably there is a large party split on this with 74% of Republicans but only 30% of Democrats saying they trust the right leaning network.

        CNN does next best because it is the second most trusted of Democrats, Republicans, and independents. 39% say they trust it compared to 41% who do not, with 59% of Democrats, 33% of independents and 23% of Republicans saying it carries credibility with them.

        The major networks all have the majority trust of Democrats but less than 20% from Republicans. NBC, perhaps because of the ideological bent of MSNBC, does the best among Democrats at 62%. Overall 35% of voters trust it to 44% who do not. CBS does the worst among Republicans, with 69% distrusting it. A plurality of independents express distrust of all five outlets we tested.

        Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/01/26/fox-most-trusted-name-news-according-new-poll#ixzz0dpQqQCqa

        • I trust big businesses to do what is best for business. And news is big business.

          So in a sense, I trust Fox completely.

      • The Washington Times’s Jennifer Harper picked up on a new study from the non-partisan Center for Media and Public Affairs showing President Obama getting much more flattering news coverage from ABC, CBS and NBC (46% positive vs. 54% negative) during his first year in office than did Presidents Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush, all of whom received roughly three times more bad press than good from those same broadcast networks.

        But one network did offer scrutiny roughly equal to that provided by the old networks in the past, according to CMPA: the Fox News Channel. Reviewing the first thirty minutes of FNC’s Special Report with Bret Baier, CMPA found roughly three times more negative coverage of Obama (78%) vs. positive coverage (22%) during 2009. This compares to the broadcast networks doling out 74% bad press for Ronald Reagan in 1981 and 77% bad press for George W. Bush in 2001. In 1993, Bill Clinton fared better than his GOP counterparts (28% positive vs. 72% negative), but much worse than President Obama. (Chart below the jump).

        As the MRC’s Tim Graham noted in a just-released special report from MRC, Omitting for Obama, the three broadcast networks were routinely late in picking up on negative storylines about the Obama administration, and gave paltry attention to major scandals such as the radical affiliations of ex-White House aide Van Jones, ACORN, and the pro-communist musings of then-White House communications director Anita Dunn. Instead, those stories were brought to light by alternative news sources, such as Fox News, talk radio and the conservative blogosphere, and then only grudgingly covered by the old media.

        Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2010/01/26/study-only-fox-news-offered-obama-historically-normal-scrutiny-2009#ixzz0dptgipad

    • Truth Seeker says:

      This is why I made a point above this post that states that all meetings and phone calls our government makes should be made public as we pay their saleries and bills.

      • Agree. I think we should also have transcriptions for anything with a high level official (unless related privileged / ongoing investigations / national security / et cetera).

        Imagine, go to a website, choose an official and it shows their calendar, who they met with, brief summaries and full transcripts.

        I have to stop now before I get too carried away with this wonderful dream. ::sigh::

        • But we already have that, remember Obama promised transparency, and he has that neat web site. I am sure all that is posted there each day. Hehehehhe

          • Yes. He did promise something like that. And he delivered in spectacular fashion. The search functionality alone is amazing. You can search for keywords, politicians, topics.

            For example, you can cross-reference “Obama” and “ACORN” and see every time he’s been in a meeting where it was mentioned since his election. It shows you the sentence containing the word and the topic of the meeting. If you click in, you can see the whole transcript. It even flags campaign contributors and registered lobbyists in a separate colors. It’s amazing.

            The only problem is this: he never said he’d tell you the address of this website. Good luck finding it. 🙂

  10. My contribution for today’s discussion.

    Oregon says yes to taxing wealthy, businesses

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100127/ap_on_bi_ge/us_oregon_tax_vote

    “Democrats in the Oregon Legislature made it as easy as they could for the voters to raise taxes on somebody else, and the electorate responded Tuesday by approving Measures 66 and 67.”

    Why people fall for this political BS is beyond me. Businesses do not pay taxes; they pass the cost on to the consumer. Most wealthy people have the option to move and live somewhere else where the cost of living is less. These people need to remember that if you allow government to do something to someone else, eventually they will do it to you.

    “The vote affirms the two-year budget the Legislature controlled by Democrats adopted last year, and spares it $727 million worth of budget cutting during a four-week session that begins Monday.”
    Government will always grow; it has no incentive to become smaller. Budget won’t balance; find someone else to steal from.

    ”Courtney’s counterpart in the House, Speaker Dave Hunt, says the session will focus on legislation to spur job creation and to help people hurt by the slump that has boosted the unemployment rate to 11 percent and driven record numbers of people to seek aid such as food stamps.”

    Let’s see we are going to punish business for doing business in the state but we are going to spur job creation, makes perfect sense. Least we forget lets play the emotion card to justify stealing from one group of people by saying we are helping the poor people.

    ”It was a victory for public employee unions who were the spearhead of the campaign for the taxes and raised enough money to outspend the opponents.”

    American politics at its finest: cater to the special interest groups.

  11. I have been pondering lately. How many times would you all say it is fair to tax a single dollar?

    Think about it…

    A business make money, pays a tax on each dollar.
    A person gets income from the business, pays income tax on the same dollar.
    The person spends the money, pays sales tax on the same dollar.

    I wonder what the true tax rate would be if you took all of this into account?

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      correct JB, This makes me happy when I produce my own food, cider, lumber, and firewood and avoid layers of taxes. Now if I can only figure out how to produce everything else I need….

  12. Dr. Piazza got my email somehow. I am not a client, nor will I ever be, but I sometimes read what he has come across.

    http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/2010/01/25/ignatius-piazza-this-inspired-me-to-carry-on/#video

  13. Don’t complain, USWep.

    I wanted winter tires from my car. They need to be speed rated for the car too, like my summer ones, for anyone to install them. No ‘reputable’ dealer would install lower rated speed tires on the car.

    …only $1500 per tire!! Ouch.

    I guess winter tires capable of over 160mph tend to be expensive 🙂

    Opted for “normal” tires, a gray market installer and better gas pedal control. 🙂

    • Ouch is right… I imagine in that scenario, I might have had to go the same route that you did. The tires I get are from Tirerack.com. Since I am in Carolina, I don’t worry much about snow, so I get summer tires with a V rating. I can’t imagine needing 1500 tires, I would be running on the radial belts at some point.

      USW

      • When you can buy a new car for the tires…. eeek!

        No one tells you all these “hidden” ‘benefits’ of high performance cars. Everything is too expensive.

        To handle at that power plus the weight (it is the heaviest car in its class, over 2 tons) it has 4 struts per tire. Each costing some $400 to replace plus labor.

        Each wheel has dual disk brakes – double the cost to replace.

        The car is completely computer controlled except the steering. Gas pedal, brakes, gear shifter are all run by a computer. No hope for a normal non-mechanic like me to fix. $$$$$$

        Other than I love the car…. it’s insane all the follow-up costs are!

        • Bottom Line says:

          Buy a $1000 junker and run it ’till it dies…then buy another one.

          How long would it have to last to justify the cost?

          A year?

          I’ve had a few nice cars. The 300Z was fun. But my favorite one was this old junky chevy that had been sitting for years getting rusted out and beat up.

          It started on the first crank(after replacing the battery). It ran great. It only had 40,000 ORIGINAL miles on it, but looked like it had 712398149872394872394872398472398472.

          It was awesome in traffic, when people tried to bulldog me or cut me off, I would just try and ram them. They knew they didn’t wanna mess up their nice paint, and I only had rust primer and dents to protect.

          They always backed off.

  14. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hey All How’s it going with everyone?

    On topic # 1. I will not and cannot fathom any one from Bush to anyone from his administration knew or planned an inside job of what happened on 9/11, never. Why would they come up with something like that to kill 3000 innocent people? For what purpose? Just some wild crazy idea of going to war? Hey let’s plan on having some planes smash into the trade center and blame somebody else for it. I don’t care if it did take Bush a while to get out of that classroom, what was he suppose to do, jump up and run around like a chicken without it’s head, scaring those kids half to death? I think once the shock of it wore off, he handled it the right way. I don’t care how many video clips might say or show something different. I know what I saw when they showed that on the news, when those 2 planes hit the trade center. I know Flag thinks other wise or there might be others who think the same thing. I don’t, can’t and won’t believe that those structures didn’t collapse because of the heat and the melting of the steel frame, and that it was an inside job of an implosion. That’s my opinion of that anyway.

    Topic # 2. On the banning of the dictionary in Calif., because of what that kid found. They keep banning books because of the language or certain words that come up in those books, is not going to stop any kids from learning about oral sex, or any other use of words that might have to do with it. Kids are going to learn these things, either by what’s on TV or movies or even on commercials. Everything you see anymore has something to do with sex. If parents don’t teach their kids about everything there is to know about anything, they will find other ways of learning about it. There is too much political correctness when it comes to teaching kids about sex. Either they start teaching it at a way too early age like Kindergarten, or not at all. Please leave that subject to the parents to teach their kids about certain words and how and when they should be used, if at all. Again, my opinion.

    Topic # 3. So what if it’s gays or straight who want to find someone through E-Harmony, what business is it of theirs anyway. I understand they charge like $300 anyway to find a match for someone. I get very tired of the gay community being discriminated against because of the life style they choose to live, and if they decided to go to that company to find someone, and that company refused, then I think they should really change their policy or say that they don’t do that. What about fat, obese, ugly, pimply, freckly, cross eyed, bald, or just plain looking people? Are they discriminated against? What do these companies expect, people who like models or movie stars before they do anything? If gay people want to find somebody through that program, let them, what do you care as long as you get your money for helping? Gay people have just as many feelings as the next person. Are they any less human than anybody else? NO!, They are not. They have a right to be just as happy as anybody else.

    Topic # 4. USW, I agree with what you said, there isn’t much more I can say on it really. I do know, that Reid is in major trouble here in Nevada and his poll numbers are pretty darn low because of his treatment of the people here and the shabby ways he is handling his part in the health care bill. If they do their behind closed door, 1 a.m., leaving republicans out of the loop, we don’t give a rats a$$ about what you people want, we’re going to do it anyway vote, then you can believe, we here will vote him out, and out for good. The people here are really fed up with him and the lies he has told, especially all the good and all the jobs he has brought to Nevada. If the majority of the people are against this bill, and they vote it back in whether it’s revised or not, then I see a lot more Democrats getting their walking papers. I hope anyway. But, there again, that’s only my opinion.

    Hope all is having a good day.

    Judy

  15. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    “By Georgie Anne Geyer Georgie Anne Geyer – Tue Jan 26, 6:05 pm ET
    WASHINGTON — It’s more than obvious that some things are going very wrong in the country, yet when I try to add up the ways in which we Americans perceive the problems, all I end up with is six plus four equals 15, and 20 minus eight leaves you seven.

    No, dear fellow citizens and co-conspirators, in trying to put our beloved country back on its feet I am not only talking about our dysfunctional Congress or a hesitating presidency, or even my own admitted failings at mathematics. I am talking about you and me: the people, el pueblo, das Volk.

    It has become a commonplace, for instance, to say in conservative and even independent circles that it is government that is not working. Saint Ronald Reagan is invoked here, saying that government is the problem. The Far Right, of course, says constantly that government can do nothing right, nothing at all — and the statement is accepted even by those who disagree with it, almost like background noise.

    All of this is very curious because the government question, which is really “the” question at the center of governance today, defies ideological definition. The Economist reported last week on how George W. Bush responded to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 with his enormous “war on terrorism.” This led to “the biggest expansion in the American state since Lyndon Johnson’s (the Great Society) in the mid-1960s.” In fact, the London magazine continued, “the gap between American public spending and Canada’s has tumbled from 15 percentage points in 1992 to just 2 percentage points today.”

    Even Barack Obama, not quite a saint at the moment, even to his liberal backers, has said that it is not big government or small government that is important, but good government, and it was under a Democratic government, that of President Bill Clinton, that some of the most important laws regulating Wall Street were undone.

    But it is palpably ridiculous, when you think about it for a moment, to say that government can do nothing well. In fact, many of our best services are government-run. Have these ideologues forgotten the National Park Service, our wonderful firemen and policemen, Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, consumer protection, the FBI and so many others?

    Even more important, we have become a people who want Haiti rebuilt; we are furious that George W., with all his other grandiose spending, did not rebuild New Orleans; we want to save Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and maybe Somalia and Yemen, too; we make fun of politicians who talk about limits; and we really don’t have any patience with serious answers to global warming or infrastructure-rebuilding. Nor will we countenance all that “unhappy talk” about raising taxes. The United States of this moment in history has been “Brigadoonized.”

    Admittedly and unfortunately, much of our mindset as a people has been formed by the media, especially the news “entertainment” of television and the disuniting power of the Internet. Have you noticed how many politicians are now “columnists,” like Sarah Palin, who has just gone to Fox News as an “analyst”? This is why so much of our supposed “patriotism” these days seems to be so phony — even when there is a genuine core to the sentiment, the expression comes out as essentially entertainment.

    Or take the television commentators’ analyses of the terrible problems of Haiti. They say that “something must be done.” But in the next breath, they destroy either (1) the idea of the U.S. doing something because it might smack of that old bugaboo “colonialism,” or (2) any other genuine authority that could give the stability needed. Real authority, of course, is bad to this ideological posture.

    In America today, the serious problems we face are not from Big Government, but clearly from Big Capitalism — from the gross greediness of Wall Street, from the bonus pool of $130 billion at the end of 2009 for the nation’s six biggest banks, and from their refusing to pay sufficient taxes to the nation, which makes their exorbitant successes possible.

    These things happen in history. Sometimes government is blessed with balance and success, and sometimes business plays that role. What we Americans have believed in since the beginning days of our republic is a balance between all of the factors of development. When one player in the power equation becomes too powerful or too dangerous, others step in to rework the American story: Teddy Roosevelt breaks up the trusts, FDR starts WPA work camps, or Bill Clinton works with Republicans to stop a welfare program gone sour.

    Right now it is a balance that we need desperately — but we can hardly find that precious balance if Americans don’t even understand the roots of the problem.

    We have men and women here who could give us the renewal we seek. One of the men to watch is hardly an unknown: former chairman of the Federal Reserve Paul Volcker, a true “financial statesman” who has now been taken into Obama’s inner circle. The respected 82-year-old has long been pressing the president to restrict banks engaging in risky activities while continuing to enjoy taxpayer support for insured deposits.

    Volcker stands at 6 foot 7 inches, and one of the stories going around is that he’s “too big to fail.” I can only hope he is.”

    I just had to post this, because I couldn’t stop laughing the entire time I was reading it. Ms. Geyer is trying to say that we can’t solve any of our problems until we undertand what they are. (I agree with that part)…

    But then she goes on to display such a hillarious lack of understanding of what our problems are that I almost died laughing… and then (of course) she offers her idea of a solution!!!

    OMG… crying… laughing soooo hard…. crying

    Anyone who reads that article and doesn’t notice at least 15 contradictions has no idea how to critically read something… seriously!

    • Peter,

      It is our responsibility to rebuild Haiti, damned secret weapons…

      http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/cubas_latest_whopper.html

      By Humberto Fontova
      The U.S. Defense Dept. “caused the Haiti earthquake with electromagnetic shock-wave bombs,” reports the Castro regime. “Iran is Next.”

      Intrepid bloggers at Babalu Blog discovered the stunning revelation above in an exclusive article on a website run by the Castro regime titled Verdades de Cuba (Cuban Truths). Russian intelligence, we learn upon reading, recently arrived at the determination and vouchsafed it (apparently exclusively) to their vital Cuban allies.

      It seems that the Russian Northern Fleet — in particular its flagship, the Peter the Great — has been closely monitoring U.S. Navy hanky-panky in the Caribbean for two years now. “Lately the U.S. has made tremendous advances in their Earthquake weapons,” report the Russians via the Cubans. U.S. satellites allow for the aiming and concentration of these powerful radio frequencies, which harness the natural interaction of forces between the ionosphere and the earth’s fault lines.

      An ultra-secret unit within the U.S. Defense Department codenamed Project HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) is the central culprit, we learn, and has diversified its line of lethal radio frequencies to produce floods, droughts, and hurricanes, along with earthquakes — of which the Haitian is in fact only the latest.

      Only last month, Project HAARP unleashed a demo earthquake near Eureka, California that registered 6.5 on the Richter scale. And the May 2008 earthquake that shook Szechuan China and registered 7.8 was also the handiwork of the U.S.’s Project HAARP.

  16. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Buck is missing a key point today.

    Where the Constitution is supposed to apply to the people, it USES THE TERM PEOPLE.

    Where the Constitution is supposed to apply to the citizens, it USES THE TERM CITIZENS OR CITIZENRY.

    Other than the times when it uses those terms, the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) DOES NOT APPLY TO INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE OR CITIZENS!!!

    The Constitution and the Bill of Rights ARE THE RESTRICTIONS PLACED UPON THE GOVERNMENT TO PREVENT IT FROM BECOMING TYRRANICAL.

    Therefore, since Amendment I clearly states, “Congress shall make no law….” that is EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS, NO LAW.

    The law does not have to specifically apply to “people” or “citizens” or “corporations”, that IS NOT A REQUIREMENT of the Constitution!!! The requirement is that the Amendment says “Congress shall make no law”, and therefore, NO LAW can be made that would be considered Constitutional.

    The whole attempt to make the Constitution or the Bill of Rights apply to “the people” is a complete red-herring. The Constitution is an enumeration of THE RESTRICTIONS AGAINST GOVERNMENT, and has nothing to do with how the government applies rules to “the people”.

    • Buck The Wala says:

      I am impressed Peter; in one short post you completely eradicated 234 years of constitutional jurisprudence. 🙂

      • Buck The Wala says:

        In all seriousness though, there can be a legitimate argument to be made that no law means no law and hence any restriction is unconstitutional.

        I am basing my arguments on the development of first amendment law over the past 234 years which has built up exceptions and caveats and the like. Starting from the premise that these laws are also unconstitutional, you could easily (and rightly) reach your conclusion. But I base my argument on these incremental steps and the body of law that has been developed.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Buck,

          I would say that that “body of law” that you cite has been tainted by the motives of people who’s intent was to circumvent the Constitution and the Bill of Rights thereby making them a less potent force against the government becoming a tyranny.

          Since the government has, in fact, become more tyrannical with each and every step in the evolution of this “body of law” which you like to cite, I would say my point is self-evident 🙂

          So, I think it would be indeed better if “no law” meant “no law” as originally intended.

          • Buck The Wala says:

            That’s a valid argument to make. I would still disagree.

            My issue is with the argument that corporations are/should be subject to all of the same rights and freedoms as individuals.

            • Buck

              Why should abstract concepts in the minds of men be of equal standing of real men?

              How can a ghost have rights?

              • Buck The Wala says:

                That is basically what I’m arguing, though taken to a different extreme.

                Corporations have LEGAL rights bestowed upon them by government which allows for their existence. They are not individuals and thus do not have the same NATURAL rights as you or I.

              • Buck,

                There many legal, but wholly evil, things.

                This is one of them.

                The less rights a “Corporation” gets, the better for society on the whole.

                Responsibility for one’s action is the key to drive moral behavior.

                Removing personal responsibility will drive immoral behavior.

                Mercantilism exists because corporations exist.

                A company – such as Blackwater – can do great evil because their management is immune to the criminal and financial effects.

                Corporations are run by caretakers – the owners, shareholders, are so uninvolved in the business most do not even know what business they own.

                Caretakers have no real stake beyond their tenure – and thus, care little of what happens after they are gone.

                A dangerous mix of chemicals I’d say.

              • BF

                All VERY TRUE.

                BUT

                “NO LAW ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH”

                THE Constitution must take precedence over our view of “corporations”.

                Otherwise you have unleased the greatest of evils without any constraint what so ever.

                JAC

              • JAC,

                No argument that uses the Constitution holds any weight with me – you know that!! 🙂

                I use the Constitution AGAINST those that (1)believe they actually know what it says and (2) to contradict constitutionalists.

                I have done (1) and I am not (2).

                As my point above – a ghost has no rights. Period.

                If you want to organize a group of people, convince them on your own accord to give them your money and you spend it in any way whatsoever.

                You will never have an argument from me.

                You can call yourself a “company” even.

                But I do not recognize human rights for non-humans, and abstract concepts pretending to be humans

                I recognize YOU, JAC, as human that has rights.

                I do not recognize EXXON having ANY rights.

  17. No one else is going to say it? No one? On an open mic night? Alright fine.

    I’ll say it.

    IT’S APPLE iTABLET TIME!!!! WOOOOOOOOO!!!

    Time to give more money to Steve Jobs, I guess.. and I just bought a new Mac.. alas..

    • Ok, fine.. it’s apparently called an iPad. I can live with that. Thing looks absolutely sick. I am just trying to figure out why Apple stock is down $5..

    • Truth Seeker says:

      I am definately getting me one of these. I do have a great idea for an app for it to for my company.

      • Well, don’t keep it a secret, tell your friends first (that be us at SUFA)

        • What does Steve Jobs have against my wallet? I just gave him some money and now he goes and puts out something like this?

          Some thoughts:

          -This is going to canabalize market share from Kindle (not as much as you would think for reasons I’ll get to)
          -This will not affect Apple laptop sales (because laptop price point is much higher and the platform is not open, so I don’t see them as direct competitors)
          -This is going to kill Dell’s netbook sales
          -The reason Kindle and Sony’s eBooks will be ok is threefold. (A)the backlight is more of an eye-strain. Reading on an eReader (I have one) is exactly like a book on my eyes, but I get teary if I stare at a monitor too long. (B)It’s too big. I can stuff my reader in my pocket and go. This is still something I have to carry separately and is, therefore, less convenient. (C)Battery life. They say 10 hours of video – in all honesty, this is probably closer to 6. Without video, it’s probably a lot longer still. But I charge my reader every week or so. I have never run out of juice. I don’t think the iPad will last anywhere near that even if you use it as a reader and nothing else.

          Just my humble opinion.

  18. Judy Sabatini says:

    Harry Reid Furious with McCain
    Tuesday, 26 Jan 2010 01:35 PM

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he has been “shocked” at the behavior of John McCain since he returned to the Senate from his failed White House bid.

    “My disappointment — no, that’s the wrong word,” Reid declared angrily. “I’ll try to find a better word. My amazement has been John McCain. I thought he’d turn out to be a statesman, work for things. He’s against everything. He’s against everything! He didn’t used to be against everything.”

    Reid’s fury at McCain was revealed in an eye-opening article, titled “Harry Reid Is Complicated,” in The New York Times Magazine on Sunday.

    Reid might strike some as a soft-spoken, amiable gentleman from a small Western town (Searchlight, Nev., population 798). But the analytical article presents the 70-year-old Democrat as anything but likeable, a blunt-talking politicians whose animosities go far beyond McCain.

    Adam Nagourney, the Times’ chief national political correspondent, wrote the article, which also disclosed that:

    * Reid “has a thing” about fat people, “manifested in asides to aides who seem to be getting portly and an office staff that is suspiciously thin.” When George W. Bush invited Reid for coffee in the Oval Office in the last weeks of his presidency, Bush’s dog walked in and Reid told the president: “Your dog is fat.”
    * Reid readily admits that he called Bush a “liar” twice, and referred to him as a “loser” — in front of a high school civics class.
    * Reid called angry protesters at town-hall meetings “evilmongers,” and said he has no regrets for referring to former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan as a “political hack.”
    * When independent Democrat Joe Lieberman said he would not support the healthcare reform bill Reid was trying to pass in the Senate, Reid told associates: “He double-crossed me.” Lieberman disputes that he misled Reid.
    * Reid demonstrated an apparent aversion to black people in comments he made about then-presidential candidate Barack Obama. He was quoted in a new book as saying that Obama could become America’s first black president because he was “light skinned” and had “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” Reid apologized to President Obama for the remarks.

    Reid has “an almost pathological propensity to say things that get him in trouble,” Nagourney observed.

    The majority leader’s missteps have not been lost on Nevada voters: The Senate’s most powerful Democrat, who is up for re-election in November, is trailing his possible opponents badly in the polls.

    A Rasmussen Report survey in mid-January found Reid earning just 36 percent of the vote against either of two top Republican challengers — down seven percentage points from a month earlier. Sue Lowden, former chairwoman of the Nevada GOP, drew 48 percent against Reid, and businessman Danny Tarkanian picked up 50 percent.

    The poll also showed Reid trailing a third Republican contender, former Assemblywoman Sharron Angle, by four percentage points.
    Rasmussen found that 47 percent of respondents have a “very unfavorable” opinion of Reid, and a survey by The Las Vegas Review-Journal disclosed that 52 percent of Nevadans view Reid unfavorably.

    A more recent poll by Daily Kos/Research 2000 showed Reid trailing Tarkanian by 11 percentage points, and Lowden by nine.

  19. Judy Sabatini says:

    From the American Majority.

    Author:
    Ned Ryun
    27 Jan, 10
    at 1:14 PM
    Statism of the Union

    So tonight we get to hear the State of the Union, and it will no doubt follow the usual storyline of glossing over the bad, highlighting the good (if there is any?), but in the end not really providing us an honest evaluation of where we stand right now, January 27, 2010. With all that has happened in the past year, I sincerely hope the President will address the nation honestly and openly.

    Since January of 2009, we have seen the growth of the government like almost no other period in history: the government takeover of General Motors, government takeover of financial institutions, the massive bailout (that was actually a goody bag for special interests and has done zero for increasing jobs), the explosion in government spending (can someone explain why federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% during the last 18 months? And here I thought there was a recession . . . ), and now government is 40% of GDP, which means since government is bigger, it can insert itself even more into our lives. And I haven’t even mentioned the healthcare bill of 2009, which was a crass grab by our political class to control 1/6th of the American economy.

    big government

    So what I’d like to see done tonight is just an admission by the President:

    “Yes, America, we think the state needs to grow. We think that the increased role of the government in your lives is obviously a great thing (i.e. statism). We think we know better than you.”

    Although I do not agree, at least then he would be telling the truth about where the state of our union really lies.

    What about you? What would you like to see discussed?

    • The only words I want to hear him say are : My resignation is effective immediately.

    • Hi Judy!

      All is well!

      I will no longer watch or listen to an incompetent liar! I have no desire to be aggrivated by his constant BS that means nothing in reality. Obama’s lies will just continue to hide the truth.

      Just my humble opinion 🙂

      G!

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Hey G

        Glad you made it back okay.

        Well, I am going to force myself and see what the windbag has to say. If he says he’s created jobs, I just might end up throwing something at the TV. I have been looking online, putting in applications, but so far no call backs, but I will not give up.

        Just like what Reid says he’s done for Nevada, HA!, What a laugh. He is really getting to the point here, that people can’t wait to get him out, they SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, want him gone.

        • Hey!

          If I’m was a betting man, I’d bet he will piss you off! Tha’s why I won’t bother, don’t need the irritation to carry over to work tomorrow, I might cuss out a few select Democrats that I know! 🙂

          G!

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            Well, I haven’t been in the best of moods today anyway, so what’s one more irritant. By the way, you’ll pardon me if I don’t take that bet because I’d lose. He pisses me off anyway G. In fact this whole administration does. This has got to be worse than Carter.

  20. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Buck makes the interesting argument above that 234 years of “legal precident” should essentially trump what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ACTUALLY SAY. This is precisely why the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have NOT prevented our descent into tyranny, because we have allowed “legal precident” to be the arbiter, even when legal precident CONTRADICTS what these documents ACTUALLY SAY.

    For example:

    Amendment states that, “Congress shall make no law blah blah blah”.

    Congress then states, “Well, wait a minute, we want to be able to do XYZ, and even though the amendment doesn’t LET us do XYZ, XYZ would be a GOOD THING.

    President then says, “Well, yeah, I agree, XYZ would be a GOOD THING, so go ahead and write a law and I will sign it, and @#!@# what the Amendment says!”

    Supreme court then says, “Well, the Amendment says that this law should be unconstitutional, but what the hell, we agree that XYZ is a GOOD THING, so we will vote 5-4 to uphold the law, and put in some flowery legal jargon to make it sound good!”

    This then becomes “legal precident”. This legal precident is then relied upon the next time that THIS happens:

    President: “Well, the Amendment says we can’t do ABC, but ABC would be a GOOD THING”

    Congress: “Yeah, we agree, ABC would be a GOOD THING, so we will write a law and you can sign it, and @#$@!% what the Amendment says!”

    Supreme Court: “Well, TECHNICALLY, the Amendment says you can’t do ABC, but this other Supreme Court allowed XYZ to go through on a 5-4 ruling, so we can rule 6-3 on this one and let ABC go through!”

    And on and on it goes!

    • Is there any consideration about the ethics? Just because its legal to cheat on a spouse, does not make it OK. All these back room deals may be legal, but who doesn’t think they are cheating? The excuse is its how thing get done/have always been done/greater good.

  21. Judy Sabatini says:

    What Obama’s Not Going to Tell You About Jobs. Let me take a guess here, and say, there isn’t any. If there are so many jobs out there, then why are we sitting at almost 13% here in Nevada?

    What Obama’s Not Going to Tell You About Jobs

    By John Lott

    – FOXNews.com

    Jobs “created” by the Obama administration? How do the numbers really add up?

    AP

    The major focus of President Obama’s State of the Union address tonight is expected to be on jobs. But as he pushes for more of the same solutions to get folks back to work maybe we should ask how well his policies have been working out after his first year in office. The White House recently announced that during the president’s first year between 1.5 to 2 million jobs were “saved or created” by the stimulus. When the December unemployment numbers were released, Christina Romer, President Obama’s chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers, pointed out that while jobs were still being lost, the rate of loss had slowed dramatically. “In the first quarter of 2009, when we first came in, we were losing on average 691,000 jobs per month. With these new numbers in the fourth quarter, we were losing 69,000 jobs,” Ms. Romer claimed.

    Many graphs have appeared in the media illustrating Ms. Romer’s point. Figure 1 shows the period of time that she refers to, and since July 2009 there has indeed been a significant decline in the number of unemployed Americans.
    Check out Figure 1 here.

    What is harder to find are any similar graphs on the number of people who have given up looking for work, though there are a lot of discussions about how including this as well as people forced to take part time work raises the unemployment rate to 17.3 percent. People are no longer counted as unemployed if they have not looked for work during the previous 4 weeks. And there are many reasons why people don’t work (e.g., women staying at home to take care of children, illness). But the question is how the number not working has changed. Figure 2 shows how the number of working age adults who have left the labor force has changed over the last year. At about the same time that the increase in unemployment began to slow there was a similar increase in the number of people who stopped looking for work. This suggests that the improvement in the unemployment numbers really just represented a shift in people who have given up.

    Check out Figure 2 here.

    So if the improvement in the unemployment numbers just represents a shift in people who have given up looking for work, what happens if both the numbers are added together? That is what Figure 3 shows, and the result is a virtually straight upward line. During a period of economic expansion as the number unemployed fell and more people entered the labor force, this graph would show a downward sloping line. But this figure indicates that any change in the number of new people being unemployed is more than completely offset by people leaving the labor force.

    Check out Figure 3 here.

    When the stimulus plan was passed it was passed as a job creation bill, something that President Obama said would “create or save up to 4 million jobs.” On January 25, Larry Summers, Obama’s chief economic adviser, predicted that the economy would start improving “within weeks” of the stimulus plan being passed. On May 27, President Obama claimed that nearly 150,000 jobs had already been “created or saved.” Now last week the administration claimed that half the 4 million jobs from the stimulus had already been obtained.

    Adding the increase in unemployment together with the increase in people who have left the labor force comes to about 6 million people since the stimulus was passed in February. “These charts make it very hard to support the claim that the stimulus has had any noticeable impact on the number of jobs,” Kevin Hassett, Director of Economic Policy Studies and Senior Fellow, told FoxNews.com. Professor Stephen Bronars, a labor economist at the University of Texas at Austin, agreed saying: “I can’t see any [employment] benefit from the stimulus.”

    The White House was unwilling to respond to these findings on the record. However, off the record, one senior White House official strenuously objected to both the data used here as well as what that data mean. “The payroll survey is better than the household survey for tracking the impact of stimulus on employment/unemployment,” the official wrote FoxNews.com. Professor Bronars said that they were pointing to the wrong data: “it is impossible to track the number of unemployed workers in the payroll survey. You have to use the Household survey to measure the number unemployed.”

    A second point was raised by the White House official: “To say that the stimulus has or has not had an effect you need to have a theory of what the employment/unemployment situation would have been without any stimulus. I would suggest that you contact independent forecasters directly.” Yet, 53 business economists and forecasters surveyed in January by The Wall Street Journal expected the December rate to be at 8.6 percent, well below the 10 percent rate it turned out to be.

    Cary Leahey, an economist and senior managing director with Decision Economics, one of the forecasters surveyed by The Wall Street Journal, provided FoxNews.com with one explanation for why the stimulus increased unemployment: “With transitional moves in government spending [from the stimulus], there will be dislocations in the economy that will lead to higher unemployment.” But he emphasized that he thought those effects would be “short-lived, six to nine months, definitely not more than a year.”

    • Judy, great post! Lott is great at making numbers make sense.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Hi LOI

        Thanks, and yes he is good at making the number make sense. As much as I’m going to hate to have to watch that State of the Union address, I curious as to what he’s going to say about all those jobs he saved and created. Like I said above, job losses here are at 13% and people seem to be losing their daily. Here I am looking for one, applying at places where I think would be good, but so far, no call backs. There has been a heck of a lot of changes here in Reno. 2 fire departments has closed, only about 2 to 3 people in each that is left opened, police officers being laid off, teachers being laid off, even city workers have been laid off. Yea, I can see where O has done a lot for the people in the job department. BS.

  22. Judy Sabatini says:

    This was just sent to me, and I thought I would pass it to all here.

    Subj: READ IMMEDIATELY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    READ IMMEDIATELY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    HI ALL THIS was sent to me by our son who is in charge of the
    computers for the state of Florida — whenever he receives anything
    like this it is a warning to the State as well as all us little
    people —
    VERY IMPORTANT , PLEASE READ THIS
    Anyone-using Internet mail such as Yahoo, Hotmail, AOL and so on.
    This information arrived this morning, Direct from both Microsoft
    and Norton Please send it to everybody you know who has Access to
    the Internet. You may receive an apparently harmless e-mail
    titled ‘Mail Server Report’ If you open either file, a message will
    appear on your screen saying: ‘It is too late now, your life is no
    longer beautiful….’
    Subsequently you will LOSE EVERYTHING IN YOUR PC, And the person who
    sent it to you will gain access to your Name, e-mail and password.
    This is a new virus which started to circulate on Saturday
    afternoon. AOL has already confirmed the severity, and the anti
    virus software’s are not capable of destroying it.
    The virus has been created by a hacker who calls himself ‘life owner’.
    PLEASE SEND A COPY OF THIS E-MAIL TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS, And ask them
    to PASS IT ON IMMEDIATELY!
    THIS HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY SNOPES.
    *http://www.snopes.com/computer/virus/mailserver.asp*

    • Judy,

      According to Snopes, this is false. I have been played by these a few times.
      No harm though, better to be safe.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        I just put up what was sent to me. If I don’t recognize who sent me anything, I automatically delete it. I too, take no chances, happened to me once a long time ago and once was enough.

  23. Judy Sabatini says:

    Sensible Gun Registration Plan That Will Work

    Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont ‘s own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.

    Maslack recently proposed a bill to register “non-gun-owners” and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun.

    Maslack read the “militia” phrase of the Second Amendment as not only affirming the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as a clear mandate to do so. He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a “monopoly of force” by the government as well as criminals. Vermont ‘s constitution states explicitly that “the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State” and those persons who are “conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms” shall be required to “pay such equivalent.” Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to “any situation that may arise.”

    Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver’s license number with the state. “There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so,” Maslack says Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state .. it’s currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

    “America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”

    This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns. Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way.

    America

    Home of the free,

    BECAUSE of the Brave.

    • v. Holland says:

      Heh HEH HEh, I don’t know what to say-this just made my day-talk about turn about is fair play.

    • I remember in high school reading in the IL Constitution that all able bodied men between the ages of 16 and 60 were members of the state militia.

  24. Good and Bad News About Global Warming

    Wednesday, January 27, 2010
    By Bret Baier

    Full of Holes

    The hole in the ozone layer, thought to be caused by human use of refrigerants and aerosols, is slowly repairing itself. The New York Times reports while that’s good news for environmentalists, some scientists warn it may actually contribute to global warming.

    They say the ozone hole led to the formation of bright, moist clouds that helped keep the Antarctic from warming and melting. Ken Carslaw of University of Leeds says: “The recovery of the hole will reverse that. Essentially — it will accelerate warming in certain parts of the southern hemisphere.”

    Meanwhile, public concern over global warming is rapidly declining. A new Pew Research poll shows it ranks last among the public’s top 21 issues for 2010, with just 28 percent considering it a priority. That’s down 10 points since 2007.

  25. Father O’Malley rose from his bed. It was a fine spring day in his new Washington DC parish..
    He walked to the window of his bedroom to get a deep breath of air and to see the beautiful
    day outside. He then noticed there was a jackass lying dead in the middle of his front lawn.

    He promptly called the US House of Representatives for assistance.

    The conversation went like this: “Good morning. This is Speaker Pelosi.

    How might I help you?”

    “And the best of the day te yerself. This is Father O’Malley at St.Brigid’s.
    There’s a jackass lying dead in me front lawn. Would ye be so kind as to send a couple o’ yer lads to take care of the matter?”

    Speaker Pelosi, considering herself to be quite a wit, replied with a smirk,
    “Well now father, it was always my impression that you people took care of last rites!”
    There was dead silence on the line for a long moment.

    Father O’Malley then replied: “Aye, that’s certainly true,
    but we are also obliged to first notify the next of kin.”

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      That was sooooooooo funny.

      • You’ll love the last one.

        LOT’S WIFE:
        The Sunday school teacher was describing how Lot’s wife looked back and turned into a pillar of salt, when little Jason interrupted, ‘My mommy looked back once while she was driving,’ he announced triumphantly, ‘and she turned into a telephone pole!’

        GOOD SAMARITAN:
        A Sunday school teacher was telling her class the story of the Good Samaritan. She asked the class, ‘If you saw a person lying on the roadside, all wounded and bleeding, what would you do?’ A thoughtful little girl broke the hushed silence, ‘I think I’d throw up.’

        DID NOAH FISH?
        A Sunday school teacher asked, ‘Johnny, do you think Noah did a lot of fishing when he was on the Ark?’ Johnny replied, ‘No! How could he, with just two worms?’

        HIGHER POWER:
        A Sunday school teacher said to her children, ‘We have been learning how powerful kings and queens were in Bible times. But, there is a Higher Power. Can anybody tell me what it is?’ One child blurted out, ‘Aces!’
        MOSES AND THE RED SEA:
        Nine-year-old Joey was asked by his mother what he had learned in Sunday School. ‘Well, Mom, our teacher told us how God sent Moses behind enemy lines on a rescue mission to lead the Israelites out of Egypt. When he got to the Red Sea, he had his army build a pontoon bridge, and all the people walked across safely. Then he

        radioed headquarters for reinforcements. They sent bombers to blow up the bridge and all the Israelites were saved.’ ‘Now, Joey, is that really what your teacher taught you?’ his mother asked. ‘Well, no, Mom. But, if I told it the way the teacher did, you’d never believe it!’

        THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD:
        A Sunday school teacher decided to have her young class memorize one of the most quoted passages in the Bible – Psalm 23. She gave the youngsters a month to learn the chapter. Little Ricky was excited about the task – but he just couldn’t remember the Psalm. After much practice, he could barely get past the first line. On the day that the kids were scheduled to recite Psalm 23 in front of the congregation, Ricky was so nervous. When it was his turn, he stepped up to the microphone and said proudly, ‘The Lord is my Shepherd, and that’s all I need to know.’

        UNANSWERED PRAYER:
        The preacher’s five-year-old daughter noticed that her father always paused and bowed his head for a moment before starting his sermon. One day, she asked him why. ‘Well, Honey,’ he began, proud that his daughter was so observant of his messages, ‘I’m asking the Lord to help me preach a good sermon.’ ‘How come He doesn’t answer it?’ she asked.

        BEING THANKFUL:
        A Rabbi said to a precocious six-year-old boy, ‘So your mother says your prayers for you each night? That’s very commendable. What does she say?’ The little boy replied, ‘Thank God he’s in bed!’

        UNTIMELY ANSWERED PRAYER:
        During the minister’s prayer one Sunday, there was a loud whistle from one of the back pews. Tommy’s mother was horrified. She pinched him into silence and after church, asked, ‘Tommy, whatever made you do such a thing?’ Tommy answered soberly, ‘I asked God to teach me to whistle, and He did!’

        TIME TO PRAY:
        A pastor asked a little boy if he said his prayers every night. ‘Yes sir,’ the boy replied. ‘And do you always say them in the morning, too?’ the pastor asked. ‘No sir,’ the boy replied. ‘I ain’t scared in the daytime.’

        ALL MEN / ALL GIRLS:
        When my daughter, Kelli, said her bedtime prayers, she would bless every family member, every friend, and every animal (current and past). For several weeks after we had finished the nightly prayer, Kelli would say, ‘And all girls.’ This soon became part of her nightly routine to include this closing. My curiosity got the best of me and I asked her, ‘Kelli, why do you always add the part about all girls?’ Her response, ‘Because everybody always finishes their prayers by saying ‘All Men’!’

        SAY A PRAYER:
        Little Johnny and his family were having Sunday dinner at his grandmother’s house. Everyone was seated around the table as the food was being served. When Little Johnny received his plate, he started eating right away. ‘Johnny! Please wait until we say our prayer,’ said his mother. ‘I don’t need to,’ the boy replied. ‘Of course you do,’ his mother insisted. ‘We always say a prayer before eating at our house.’ ‘That’s at our house,’ Johnny explained, ‘but this is Grandma’s house and she knows how to cook!’

      • It has floated around for a while, but worth forwarding again…

        There is an annual contest at Texas A&M University calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term. This year’s term was: “Political Correctness.”

        The winner wrote:

        “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

  26. Judy Sabatini says:

    I’m surprised she didn’t leave that dirt bag long ago.

    RALEIGH, N.C. — A friend says Elizabeth Edwards has separated from her husband, two-time presidential candidate John Edwards.

    Andrea Purse tells The Associated Press on behalf of Elizabeth Edwards that the couple has separated. Purse released a statement Wednesday that says Elizabeth is moving on with her life and wants to put this difficult chapter behind her.

    It comes as details emerge about a tell-all book from longtime John Edwards aide Andrew Young, who initially claimed he fathered a child with Edwards’ mistress.

    John Edwards publicly declared last week that he was the one who fathered a child with Rielle Hunter, who worked as a videographer before his second presidential campaign.

    North Carolina law requires couples to be separated for a year before divorcing.

    • The worst might be yet to come….rumors of a sex tape!

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        All I can say is, that I give her a lot of credit for staying with him as long as she did, especially the way he treated her during her cancer treatments, pretending to be the ever faithful husband all the while he was hooking up with that other gal. What a sleazeball he is, and I hope she takes him for everything he’s got.

  27. Part of a very good article.

    http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4290

    How Muslims Defeated the United States
    From the desk of Diana West on Wed, 2010-01-27 10:49

    Today, I am posting an extraordinary letter from a soldier currently stationed in Iraq, a sometime penpal of mine to whom I sent my three-part series on the aftermath of the surge to elicit his opinion. Knowing how thoughtful he is, I expected a substantive response. Given his time constraints alone, I did not expect an essay of this scope and I decided, with his permission, to present it here. It is unlike any commentary I have read from Iraq; it is both coolly reasoned and deeply passionate, and certain to challenge and disturb readers across the political spectrum: PC-believing liberals, Iraq-as-success-believing conservatives, Islam-as-a-religion-of-peaceniks of both Left and Right.

    So be it.

    He writes:

    I apologize for the delay in my response. I have been putting in long days … lately and I hadn’t had the time to put the thought and effort into writing this until now.

    Your three-part column series wonderfully analyzes Iraq and reaches the correct strategic assessment that no one in power wants to acknowledge.

    I have many things that I want to say but I do not wish to waste your time and I therefore put an executive summary at the beginning of this e-mail so you can skip the expanded version if you wish.

    *****

    You correctly assessed that we have not gained anything positive from our efforts in Iraq and that the nation is not our ally. (The same is true for Afghanistan.) I will go as far as saying that the Iraqis are our enemies—enemies better equipped to wage jihad against us than they have ever been. We will regret what we have done. We will regret that we created this officially Islamic nation. And we will regret that we created an officially Islamic Afghanistan. We will regret that we have placed ourselves in the service of Islam, waging jihad worldwide as we advance the Religion of Peace and eliminate Christians in the process. (So much for the accusation that the U.S. is on a “Crusade.”) It is a shame that so many people refuse to recognize how horrible Islam is, and that the U.S. made a fatal mistake when it refused to declare war against Afghanistan and Islam—when it refused victory by binding the greatest military force of all time.

  28. Judy Sabatini says:

    Obama’s Renewed Focus on Jobs Could Come at Expense of Moon Mission

    By Stephen Clark

    President Obama is reportedly going to flatline NASA’s budget when he releases his annual spending plan Monday, effectively grounding the agency’s Constellation program, which oversees human spaceflight.

    Ahead of his State of the Union address, President Obama walks along the West Wing Colonnade toward the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, Jan. 27, 2010. (AP)

    Houston, we have a problem.

    President Obama’s renewed focus on creating jobs, which he plans to lay out in his State of the Union address Wednesday night, apparently doesn’t include reaching for the moon.

    Obama is reportedly going to flatline NASA’s budget when he releases his annual spending plan on Monday, effectively grounding the agency’s Constellation program, which oversees human spaceflight.

    The program needs about $3 billion in additional funding annually for the next five years to keep the International Space Station supplied and to create a new generation of spacecraft, according to a commission the president appointed last year.

    Instead NASA will outsource space flight to other governments — such as the Russians — and private companies.

    “It’s going to be a huge negative impact on the economy, particularly aerospace,” said Bret Silcox, associate director with the National Space Society, a leading space advocacy group.

    The lack of funding is likely to hurt most in Florida, where three space shuttles would be retired, resulting in the loss of anywhere from 2,000 to 7,000 jobs, Silcox told FoxNews.com.

    NASA declined to comment on the proposal before the budget has been released. But Republican lawmakers wasted no time in blasting the president.

    “I am concerned that this administration has chosen not to prioritize NASA’s human spaceflight program, particularly when billions have been squandered on bailouts and a failed stimulus package,” said Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas, the ranking member on the House Science and Technology Committee.

    “As a result, we run the risk of losing a uniquely skilled and educated workforce,” he said.

    Rep. Pete Olson, R-Texas, whose congressional district includes Houston’s Johnson Space Center, said Obama has “sadly” been focused on the wrong priorities for America, citing the $787 billion stimulus bill that he said “wasted billion of tax dollars” by sending funds to his supporters and not creating jobs.

    Obama “could not be more wrong to consider canceling it,” he said in a written statement. “Not insignificantly during this time of economic uncertainty, human space flight accounts for thousands of high paying American jobs and are essential to maintaining our leadership.”

    Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, a member of the Science and Technology Committee whose district includes many NASA employees, said the proposal to cancel the Constellation program has broader implications than the planned return to the moon.

    “Eliminating this vision for America’s manned space program will put us even further behind in our plans to replace the Space Shuttle at a time when other nations are already challenging our preeminence in space,” he said.

    “Killing the Constellation program now would waste billions of dollars we have already invested and leave American astronauts dependent on the Russian space program for transportation to and from the International Space Station,” he said.

    NASA employs more than 18,000 civil service workers, most of whom are located at the agency’s headquarters in Washington and 10 major field centers across the country. NASA also employs 40,000 contractors and grantees who work at or near the NASA centers.

    The space agency’s budget is more than $18.7 billion this year and is expected to rise again in 2011, but by much less than the $1 billion increase NASA and its contractors have been privately anticipating since mid-December. A White House-appointed panel, led by former Lockheed Martin chief Norm Augustine, urged these changes to the administration last month.

    The panel also said a worthwhile manned space exploration program would require Obama to budget about $55 billion for human spaceflight over the next five years, some $11 billion more than he included in the 2011-2015 forecast he sent Congress last spring.

    But according to the Orlando Sentinel, White House insiders and agency officials say NASA will eventually look at developing a new “heavy-lift” rocket that one day will take humans and robots to explore beyond low Earth orbit years in the future — and possibly even decades or more.

    In the meantime, the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on earth science projects — principally, researching and monitoring climate change — and on a new technology research and development program that will one day make human exploration of asteroids and the solar system possible.

    But that doesn’t please Republican lawmakers.

    “I would strongly oppose any further cuts to human space flight funding that would make the United States dependent on foreign nations for manned space access,” said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, the ranking member on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

    “NASA’s focus must remain on continuing America’s leadership in the use of and research in space,” she said. “This is essential to secure our economic well-being and security, our technological competitiveness, and our international leadership.”

    Hall said the U.S. civil space program, for less than one-half of one percent of the federal budget, “has a proven track record of driving innovation, generating lasting jobs and propelling our nation forward. By failing to aggressively invest in NASA, we’re robbing future generations of the technologies they’ll need to compete.”

    Hall said the U.S. is in danger of losing its standing in the international community and its competitive edge globally.

    “Many of the same technologies developed and used by NASA are critical to our national defense, and we should keep in mind that the next war may well be defended from space,” he said.

    Space industry advocates expressed dismay over the prospect of the budget freeze for NASA and the impact it could have on the economy.

    “I think NASA’s value as an economic engine for the country is long understood in theory, long underplayed in Congress,” said Louis Friedman, executive director of the Planetary Society, a space exploration advocacy group.

    Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy recognized that NASA’s space exploration played a “vital role” not just in the economy but in national security,” Friedman said.

    “If they don’t fund a high achieving, inspiring human space flight program, they will probably fund one not worth the cost,” he said.

    J.P. Stevens, vice president of the Aerospace Industries Association, a trade organization for commercial space industry, told FoxNews.com that the big concern in his industry is that a lack of sufficient funding for NASA will cause a brain drain, driving the best and the brightest away — a loss he said could affect national security.

    “The big concern is how do you attract youth in an industry where you’re constantly starting and stopping” programs, he said. “You cut back your programs, you cut back students going into high level sciences and matching disciplines.”

    Ray Williamson, executive director of Secure World Foundation, said freezing NASA’s budget could help the president politically because jobs in the Constellation program are high tech and high paying.

    “If he increased the budget, he could be charged with you’re only interested in the section of the population that already has a lot of education and not so much the common everyday people,’ he said. “From that standpoint, he could face a lot more criticism.”

    • Hi Judy,

      I have several friends who work on the Space Program. I used to work the program before I came out here. I still have a house near the Space Center. This will have a huge impact on the area, and my friends. Several of them have already told me I was smart to leave when I did. Of course, my boy friend still thinks Dear Reader is gonna SAVE us all, and not cut the space program. I guess we’ll know soon enough what Dear Reader will do.

      • Cyndi,
        Your boyfriend sounds like a very smart guy. You need to listen to him more.

        You know, after all, he is the man of the house… 🙂

        Logging off for personal safety reasons!!

        • LOL! Good decision!

          Man of the house, HA! 👿

          If I listened to him all the time, he wouldn’t find me nearly as interesting. He likes the challenge! 😉

  29. Judy Sabatini says:

    From American Thinker

    January 27, 2010
    President Barack ‘Herbert Hoover’ Obama’s State of the Union
    The real State of the Union, as opposed to what you will hear from the President tonight, is captured by Michael Ledeen:

    Banks are not lending, companies are not hiring, because they are afraid of what Obama will do next. Both are afraid of onerous taxes, including new health care burdens, and the banks fear new regulations and the consequences of the recently declared war on evil bankers by the president. Seniors are afraid they will be deprived of medical treatment. Juniors are afraid they are going to be forced to buy health insurance they don’t think they need. Across the board, Americans are afraid they’re not going to find work, and won’t be able to afford a house. And, as the Massachusetts vote showed, Americans are worried about threats from abroad, worried about Iran, afraid of terrorist attacks, and afraid the Obama Administration doesn’t take all this seriously enough. As Scott Brown put it, most Americans think our tax dollars should go to fighting terrorists, not to pay lawyers to defend terrorists.

    Rhetoric cannot alter reality. There is nothing that Obama can say (or will do) to change the realities above. Virtually everything he has done or tried to do has made the situation worse. He dug a deeper hole. His problems are now intractable.

    Obama rode into office as the new Roosevelt. He will be chased out as the new Hoover. His most vigorous pursuers will likely be irate Democrats carrying tar, feathers and rope.

  30. Judy Sabatini says:

    January 27, 2010
    State of Dis-Union
    William Tate
    Given Barack Obama’s polarizing effect on the country, perhaps his speech tonight should be called the State of the dis-Union.

    Nevertheless, the Obamedia is hyperventilating over Obama’s next teleprompter-reading session. Not wanting to get left behind the breathless MSM pack–and stuck wading through their, uh, droppings–here are some humble predictions for tonight’s speech:

    -It will be numbingly long. So long that Obama will have to take a cigarette break in the middle.

    -Led by Joe O’Biden, Democrats will spend so much time on their feet applauding that they’ll wear holes in the souls of their Guccis. Not to worry, the worn footware, generally adult sizes 9-11, will be donated to homeless Haitian children.

    -Obama will refer to himself over 130 times, about once every 30 seconds of actual spoken time, while asserting that the speech really isn’t about him. To his credit, Obama will for the most part restrain himself from using the royal, we.

    -He will use the word, fight, almost as frequently. In fact, Obama will say fight so often that an international panel of linguists will declare the word overused and devoid of meaning.

    -Seeking to prove himself a true populist, Obama will rip off his $200 silk tie halfway through the speech and open his shirt collar … inadvertently revealing the gold Nobel Prize medallion he’s wearing underneath.

    -Obama will take responsibility, but not blame, for some of the mistakes he’s made the past year. He will then ask for a do-over. Hillary Clinton will then take responsibility, but not blame, for her failed presidential campaign and demand a do-over.

    -In an attempt to prove himself a budget hawk, Obama will declare a spending freeze, announcing he will cap White House arugula purchases at pre-Fiscal Year 2013 levels.

    -It’s tradition now that special guests be recognized to personalize important policy points and tug at heartstrings. Obama will point to two invited guests and explain how failure to pass Cap-and-Trade could cost them their future well-being. George Soros and Algore will briefly put down their cellphones to acknowledge Democrats’ applause.

    -Attempting to deflect criticism that his use of a teleprompter in a sixth-grade classroom proves that he is over-reliant on the device, Obama will deliver the whole address from memory.

    Naaaah. That one won’t happen.

  31. VH!

    AHH, the hated “C” word. Most women hate that term, especially when, in a womens mind could be used to refer to her by her ex! I referred, in the past, to my ex the same. Thoses events occurred many years ago, and I have resolved that my ex just couldn’t handle the military lifestyle. While her actions certainly deserved consideration of that vile word, I realized it wasn’t her actions, but her inability to handle the miltary world that we lived. Anger is powerful, containing it takes practice. What wonderful term do women use to describe their ex’s? I’m sure most are not very nice. Don’t let any term pointed at someone else offend you, if anything one should suggest the he quits being politically correct and just type out the word, get it off his chest and we all move on.

    Peace my Friend!

    G!

    • v. Holland says:

      G, I understand your meaning but, there’s that very big little word-I do indeed hate that word 🙂 but I am also encouraging my daughter to read this site and I would just rather she not have to read it here-other places in the world she will hear it-but I like the not politically correctness about this place but it’s mannered civility is refreshing.

      • v. Holland says:

        Of course, I have to admit that while I am saying this-I lost my mannered civility the other night-but I am not and never had been perfect. 🙂

        • So, what do women refer to their hated ex’s as? Just want to know what I was called for a decade or so! 🙂

          • v. Holland says:

            Now G-are you trying to get me to list a bunch of crude words on here, after I just objected to someone else doing the same thing. 🙂

            • Nah! For the sake of everyones level of (or lack of) anger, let’s just agree that those words exist. Wait a minute, there’s more than one? 😆

              G!

              RLMAO

              • v. Holland says:

                Most definitely-but I would rather not be the one to teach people new ones 🙂

              • So when men say women are complicated, it must be true. We have one vile word for our ex’s and ya’ll have an entire dictionary of them! 😉

              • GMan

                My dearest friend I must share wisdom passed to me by a woman friend of mine many years ago. After I showed her a ten point rule book of men.

                The Ten Point Rule book of Women

                1. Women make the rules.
                2. Only women are allowed to know the rules.
                3. The rules are subject to change at any time.
                4. All other rules are a waste of space.

                So there you have it.

                Peace and Freedom
                JAc

        • V.H.

          My dear, but you ARE perfect.

          You may not live up to your potential from time to time, but YOU, that is the essence of what you are, your potential, is PERFECT.

          Happy thoughts tonight
          JAC

          • v. Holland says:

            You are good for the ego my friend and I suspect that your lovely wife has to beat the women off with a stick.

    • Bottom Line says:

      Sup G,

      Thanks for the support in the form of perspective.

      Not that I should be excused really. I know better…I’m just kinda fired up today.

      Here is my reply to VH from above:

      I have no idea where she is, and haven’t talked to her in over a decade.

      Otherwise, I would simply introduce you to her, and let you judge for yourself.

      Intelligent, sneaky, evil, and discretely promiscuous.

      (the worst combination)

      The C word is being generous.

      Sorry if you are offended by my foul mouth(fingers).

      • Always willing to calm the masses, LOL!

        I think that anyone who divorced, male or female, at some point has used some rather vile words to describe the other. I would say that it’s normal. I’ve tried to get above that by trying to understand why things occurred. It takes two to make it work, in some cases, it only takes one to destroy it.

        In my case I asked her, straight up. She confirmed what I believed. So, it became pointless to take anything further as far as the anger went. Case closed.

        Sorry if that is not the case with others who have divorced. The best peace of mind you will find is the day you you let it go and move on to much better things! I bet you already know that 🙂

        G!

        • (you you) See, ya’ll got me studdering here. 😆

        • Bottom Line says:

          Indeed I know that.

          I never hardly think about her…but…

          When I read Okie’s reply as he was explaining what being overseas and away from family…

          I got to thinking about that Christmas.

          I was so excited. We had just pulled into port, and I was taking leave to spend Christmas with my pretty little wife. To add to the excitement…I had just recieved some extra $$ on my check.(travel expense reimbursement).

          It was to be a great X-mas…or so I thought.

          She wasn’t waiting for me at the pier. I didn’t know where she was.

          Turns out she was in TN with some air-force sergeant. She had been running around all over the country with all my money, …using it to pay for alchohol and hotel rooms to get pregnant in.

          The bank account was empty. All the checks to pay the bills had bounced. I was a few months behind on my car payment and about to have it repossessed.

          My house was cold and empty that Christmas.

          And to add to the mess that day…my friend’s wife was trying to come on to me, and convince me to spend the night while her hubby was on duty.

          It was NOT a good day… and that’s just the short version.

          G-man – “It takes two to make it work, in some cases, it only takes one to destroy it.”

          Yeah, I second that. I tried so hard to show her love…but she wasn’t having it. She was hell bent on destroying our so called marriage. She was a dysfunctional codependent sociopath.

          But that’s what happens when ya get raped at age 5.

          I’m just glad I got away before we had any children.

          I can’t imagine having a permanent connection to her.

          Time for a White Russian.

          Cheers!

          • My heart goes out to Ya Brother!

            My similar moment was Christmas 1993. We took the kids to her parents house for Thanksgiving that year, I went to Dad’s to deer hunt for a couple weeks, when I got back to VA, her and the kids were GONE! She had planned on this for awhile I found out, I was SO stupid not to see it! But, that’s long over with, I’ve moved on.

            What you may need to do is remind yourself that is was not your fault in any way. She will likely do the same to someone else.

            Navy life (or Marine if assigned to a ship) has always taken it’s toll on relationships, maybe more so than the other services. The last 9 years of war must be hell on our active duty troops and their relationships. It takes a special spouse to deal with that kind of life, man or women, it’s tough to sit at home wondering if your loved one will come home again. I feel for anyone that has or will deal with what you or I have had to deal with, but we are sure not alone. It’s a tough life, and it’s just not meant for everybody.

            G!

            • Bottom Line says:

              I don’t wanna sound like I have some kinda sob story. I just thought I would explain a LITTLE ’bout why I call her that.

              G man – ” What you may need to do is remind yourself that is was not your fault in any way. She will likely do the same to someone else.”

              Here’s the kicker…

              It WAS indeed as much my fault.

              I accepted her. (mistake)

              We had our problems before all of that. I married her anyway.

              She was no good and I knew it, but I guess I was trying to prove something to her.

              Years later while experiencing an early mid-life crisis, I came to the realization that I was doing the Freudian thing such as trying to marry a woman that would treat me as bad as Mom did.

              Ever seen a movie where they have a slave tied to a post being whipped till they bleed and whelp?

              Do you know what that feels like?

              I do.

              In order to feel comfortable, I needed to be abused.

              I needed a woman to walk all over me.

              I was just as much a dysfunctional codependent as she was.

              Imagine that.

              (boy am I being candid today)

              lol.

              • No sob story Brother, just a life story. On a good note, we live and learn, especially about ourselves. That can’t be a bad thing, since most of what we learn about ourselves is usually bad anyway. 🙂

                Think of her in 20 years, 400 lbs of cottage cheese thighs and very lonely!

                G!

              • Bottom Line says:

                Live and learn is right.

                I am so acutely aware of the psychology, that it’s almost a handicap when I’m “on the prowl”.

                G-man – “Think of her in 20 years, 400 lbs of cottage cheese thighs and very lonely!”

                …or just not at all.

                I’ve wasted enough time already.

                Tonight included.

                Time for White Russian #2.

                Cheers!

              • Cheers my Friend! I raise my beer in salute! 🙂

                G!

    • You are right, most women with any class despise that word and if V wouldn’t have already jumped in, I would have. You guys are much better than that – don’t stoop to the level of your exes.

  32. Anyone else wasting their time on this speech tonight? A few questions…..

    How the hell did Pelosi get voted in?

    Did his teleprompter tell him to switch to jive or did he just do that on his own?

    Did you catch Harry’s yawn? First time I’ve agreed with Reid!

    What’s with Joe’s head? Bobble-head Biden.

    I’ve found a line I agree with: “The true engine of jobs in America is with business”. (didn’t rewind to get exactly)

    • Left on the stereo, couldn’t bring myself to watch it!

      G!

      • Wise decision; have switched over to Duke basketball as I was afraid Pelosi was going to pop out the pompons and do a cartwheel before the night was done and I’d really rather not see it.

        Now I’m just suffering with Dickie V!

  33. Cyndi, where are you? OMG My son just asked me what I was watching and I said just these Assclowns in Washington. It just popped out and I started cracking up! Oh well-I’m lame! 🙂

    • Can I say assclown, V 🙂

      • v. Holland says:

        HE HE-yea I think that is okay-Had a friend once had 5 children, they were driving her crazy one day and she just suddenly told all of them I just changed my name to damn and you aren’t allowed to say that word so quit calling me. 🙂

        • Thank You. Can I call a few on this site assclowns? 🙂

          • v. Holland says:

            Need to run that by Judy-she is the resident Mom. but it might not stick with the civility part. 🙂

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              Have to run what by me?

              • The assclown question. I need permission.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                If you’re talking about Obama, you have my permission, because he is one.

              • v. Holland says:

                Good Point but in this instance we were talking about calling people on this site a bad name when they frustrate us. 🙂

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Well, Ihave heard worse, not here but other places.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                I always thought that USW frowns on the name calling anyway here.

              • v. Holland says:

                Yes he does-we were just fooling around-decided to ask mom.

              • As always, my rule goes like this. You can (within some limits of course) call Dick Cheney an asshole. However, once he starts commenting on this board, you may no longer do so. I expect everyone to treat everyone else at SUFA with respect. No exceptions.

                I do, however, realize that you were all just kidding around. But I figured I would clarify the rule for anyone who hasn’t heard it before.

                But I am certainly OK with the sentiment that all the people in DC politics are assclowns.

                USW

              • v. Holland says:

                Did you hear that Anita, we cannot call people on this site bad names just because they REFUSE to agree with us.

                Now I am going to bed too. Good night everybody.

              • Damn

          • The assclown conspiracy theory! What have you started now! 😆

            G!

            • Never fear G-Man, you are not on that list. Bottom line gets a pass today because of his severe flashback 🙂

              • OMG< Anita! You crack me up, Girl!!!

                Sorry I missed it all. My boss has been making me earn my keep this week. I can't wait until this project is over. How dare they bring to this beautiful island and then expect me to bust my britches. ASSCLOWNS!!!

                🙂

              • 🙂 🙂 Thanks for getting me in trouble 🙂 🙂 !

  34. Judy Sabatini says:

    G and Bottom Line this is for you. I just read both your stories and I have to say, I have the deepest respect for both of you. I think any woman would be damn lucky to have you both. You both treat women with respect for what I see here, and if you do here, then I know you do out of this box.

    I guess I got lucky when I got married 40 years ago at the age 17. Yes, we’ve had our problems like any other couple. He has had an affair but that was 30 years ago, and to get even I had one too. Call it revenge. But we were only married for 10 years at the time, I guess it was the 10 year itch instead of the 7. We separated for 3 months, I moved back with my parents, but couldn’t take it. I told my husband that I was coming back and instead of running away from it, we were going to talk and see if we could salvage our marriage.

    He admitted everything, I told him about mine, and it took a long time for either one of us to be able to trust again, but apparently we did because we have been together since. Oh, we still had our troubles but nothing like that has ever happened again. Now we work and talk through whatever it is that we have to deal with. Now, it’s me not working and him only working on a part time basis, but we’re managing even though we have tightened the belt so tight, we squeak.

    I’m so sorry for what happened to you both and I know that somewhere down the line you will find somebody if you haven’t already. BL, I thought you are married now anyway, aren’t you. I hope I didn’t speak out of line here or step on anybody’s toes, but like I have said here many times, you two and all others here have become such wonderful friends to me that I think we can talk about anything.

    I want to wish you all the happiness that life can bring and I know you will find it.

    Your friend now and forever

    Judy

    • Thanks for the kind words! No need to be sorry on my part, I’m glad I found the truth, which is better than always wondering.

      Was taking Dad to the hospital this morning again, snowing hard, snow covered roads, heading out the dirt road, two does crossed in front of us, missed the second one by less than 2 feet. She was so close, I couldn’t see her belly, lucky deer!

      I’ve been up forever, time for some sleep. Rest well!

      G!

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Sleep well G, and see you here tomorrow.

        Judy

      • Hi G-Man,

        I feel the same way about you as Judy. If you don’t find the thought too scary, I’d say you’re my type of guy. If I weren’t madly in love with my Dear Reader loving boy friend, I might let you buy me an ice cream cone someday!

        🙂 🙂

    • v. Holland says:

      This is why you are the honorary Mom on here-You are a good woman Judy!

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Thank you V, I take my job seriously, with an occasional kidding around with every one.

  35. Judy Sabatini says:

    Going to go for the night, but before I do again I hope I didn’t say anything out of line or step on any ones toes here, and if I did, then I sincerely apologize.

    God night me dear sweet people, I love you all very much.

    Always

    Judy

  36. Hey Ya’ll,

    There MIGHT be a job opening coming up here soon. The position is for a programmer in C+. If the slot isn’t filled internally, they’ll go external. Its a lower level job, and doesn’t pay alot. However, I can vouch for the department and quality of life on the island. Also, free basic medical, (you can opt for the pricier plan), and you get free room and board as part of your compensation. Since its very likely that the job pays less than $82,400 per year, you won’t have to pay federal income taxes. I just checked the website to see if the job has been posted. Its not there yet, but I’d send a resume anyway and keep watching the site. Here’s the link:

    http://krsjv.com/job_ops_open.html

  37. Ah 347 comments, got a good long read ahead of me.

  38. Judy Sabatini says:

    Off topic here, but this is getting ridiculous

    Anne Frank Diary Pulled From Virginia School Library After Parent Complaint

    Thursday, January 28, 2010

    CULPEPER, Va. — A parent complaint has prompted the Culpeper County school system to pull a version of Anne Frank’s diary off library shelves.

    The county’s director of instruction Jim Allen says the book pulled is “The Diary of a Young Girl: The Definitive Edition.”

    Allen says the parent complained because the version contains sexual references. The school system will use an alternative version of the diary that does not contain such references.

    The diary chronicles the teenager’s life from July 1942 until she was arrested in August 1944. She died in a German concentration camp.

    The definitive edition, which is considered an unedited version of her diary, was published in 1995 by the Anne Frank Foundation on the 50th anniversary of her death.

  39. FALSE FLAG OPERATION – ATTACK USS LIBERTY –

  40. USWep

    It is no more speculative or imaginary than assuming that someone was willing to take that risk no matter what it was.

    Speculation is pointless.

    It can be harmless if it does not prevent finding the truth.

    It is destructive if it does prevent finding the truth.

    I can’t explain what happened on 9/11. I am not the guy who built or designed the towers or building 7. Was it a freak occurrence or a planned demolition?

    To determine the answer, we place the event into the ‘set’ of collapses – starting with the one the fits it the closest.

    If I gave you a peculiar object – and asked you to figure it out – would you start by placing it in a set that has no other objects even close to it or would you first look for similarities and place it in the set that best matches.

    YET – in this case – it was placed in a set of ….. ZERO.

    And to you, this is normal?

    I simply ask the questions that come to my head.

    And I’m demanding that someone answer them within the reality of this universe.

    I simply wanted your take on the reason why an unnecessary risk would be taken by smart men. You aren’t in agreement that it was an unnecessary risk, so I guess we are at an impasse on that portion of the discussion. I see your points. I don’t know if you see mine, but that is OK too.

    YOu misunderstand.

    I do not know the thinking of those men
    I can make no judgment to motives or risk

    • I don’t misunderstand. I didn’t expect that you would KNOW the thinking of those men. I simply wondered if any plausible explanations had been found in your research. I seek a motive to take what I, and only I in our two way conversation, deem to be an unnecessary risk. You haven’t found an answer in your research. I can live with that. I asked the question, there is no answer.

      But you are mistaken to assume that I feel that you not having an answer invalidates your whole argument. I never said that. I simply see it as a hole that I wanted to try to find a plug for. I have not spent massive time researching the topic the way you have. I trust your scientific mind. That doesn’t mean that I simply accept your conclusion, but my not accepting your conclusion is far different than my saying your conclusion is wrong. I have done no such thing. If you feel I have, I would surmise you have me confused with Bob or one of the others debating it with you. As I have said, I don’t know the answer. And I don’t fear it whatever it is. When I feel that it is an answer that matters enough to me, I suppose I will begin my research the way you have. I don’t want to get into a big debate with you about it, as I assume from what I have seen that I am far out researched at this point.

      I think you simply misunderstood my intentions when I asked the original question.

  41. Todd,

    I didn’t expect my elevator/core fire “theory” to hold up. It was just piecing some interesting “facts” together.

    I’m not holding that against you at all, because I learned something indirectly – how utterly poor the Wikipedia was! It provided your statement – wide and clear as if profoundly demonstrated by reams of documentation – to end up being a bare, inconsequential comment in one article and a brief passing statement in a TV show! Eeek!

    I have to be more careful myself in using wiki – it’s an ok start, but it is far, far, far away from “proof”

    -so I thank you for that indirect lesson.

    You dismiss all scenarios presented here, usually by picking on one or two details. Yes, I know the details are important, but in my experience, open “what if” discussions lead to new information and the best answers/solutions. The way you “attack” all possible scenarios seriously discourages discussions.

    It may be that I’ve done a lot of homework and gone over a lot of the same ground – so it may be more of a lack of patience of having to walk the same worn out path dealing with the same ‘theory-leaping’ – that is, if this one theory doesn’t explain it all, we’ll change theories half-way – the first one got us this far, and this wholly incompatible theory will take us the rest of the way.

    You have been very adamant that the exterior walls of WTC 1 & 2 were not part of the vertical support, but I posted several sources that said otherwise. Any comment on that?

    I may have been unclear – I’m already accused of writing novels in a single post – the design was unique where the load carrying was on the core and the lateral support borne by the exterior. Usual designs had all girders carrying both lateral and vertical. The exterior did carry some of the verticals load however its design was – as described by the designer – was like a fishing net – poking a hole in it didn’t disturb the structure.

    But the unique was the core – centralizing the load.

    You have been very adamant that a steel building has never failed due to fire, but there are three possibilities on 9/11.

    I say again – Adamant? No, factual.

    Adamant is merely a strong opinion.
    (And to be clear, a steel building over 6 stories)

    But you dismiss all three because it’s never happened before.

    Correct.

    But 9/11 was a very unique situation. And especially WTC 7.

    No, it is not.
    http://corrosion-doctors.org/Aircraft/el-al.htm

    EL AL Boeing 747 Crash

    No collapse of building. And this building was NOT designed to resist the collusion of a 747.

    The demolition expert explained it – it was hit by thousands of tons of steel falling from hundreds of feet above that caused major structural damage, and was left to burn for more than 6 hours because there was no equipment available to fight the fire.

    The damage by steel was minor and single sided.

    The fires were minor – review China’s fire as I provided – now that’s a fire!

    Regardless, the symmetrical collapse is the undoing of ALL the towers.

    One, I would seriously doubt, but 1/1000 chances happen.

    But three on the same day? – I use the word impossible very carefully. I use the word here. Impossible.

    So your dismissal because “a steel building has never failed due to fire” is irrelevant, because fire was only part of the damage done to WTC 7.

    4,5,6 sustained incredible damage and did not collapse – it is inconceivable that the minor damage on one side would cause it. Further, against your speculation, the collapse occurred in the center – not the edge – of WTC7.

    If your speculation was correct, it should have resembled the Oklahoma Bombing.

    As I said to USWep, when measuring and calculating unknowns – reasoning dictates you start with similarities.

    There is NO similarities to the collapse of WTC7 in any non-demolished building. Period

    There are hundreds of similarities to WTC7 with purposely demolished buildings. Nearly every single aspect is the same – I repeat nearly every single aspect is the sameincluding the expectation of the observers!!

    Remember, its failure was pre-announced over all the networks. So even this aspect – expectation – was the same!

    So I find it wholly bizarre to start one’s investigation zero similarities, when 98% of collapse is well within samples of purposeful demolition.

    Of course, we know why they investigation didn’t start there – in fact, never even dared to come close, even when chemical evidence provided more than enough doubt to cause such investigation.

    I asked for your theory on the collapses, and you gave a 7 word answer:

    Painted on Nano-thermat – which is explosive.

    No, sir, you insult me.

    Please refer to the tail of the very, very long thread of post #1, following my response to Seed.

    You should have seen it, as it was directed to you.

    Repeat performance!

    Todd,

    Further on nano-thermite:

    The high surface area of the reactants within energetic sol-gels allows for the far higher rate of energy release than is seen in “macro” thermite mixtures, making nano-thermites “high explosives” as well as pyrotechnic materials (Tillotson et al 1999). Sol-gel nano-thermites, are often called energetic nanocomposites, metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) or superthermite (COEM 2004, Son et al 2007), and silica is often used to create the porous, structural framework (Clapsaddle et al 2004, Zhao et al 2004). Nano-thermites have also been made with RDX (Pivkina et al 2004), and with thermoplastic elastomers (Diaz et al 2003). But it is important to remember that, despite the name, nano-thermites pack a much bigger punch than typical thermite materials

    I can’t do much better than actually giving the documented reference papers as well.

    I find this theory lacking a few details.

    Todd, you know me well enough.

    I am rarely short of details, much to the chagrin of my readers.

    • Ok, you don’t like the word adamant. Another detail you get caught up on that has no real bearing on the discussion. But if you prefer, I’ll reword that for you:

      You stated it as fact during the “Trip to Oz” discussion:

      SK: The building derived its support from the central core and the exterior exoskeleton.

      BF: Wholly false. 100% of the support of the towers was the core. The floors were cabled and laid so that all their weight pushed straight down on the center core.

      Now you say:

      I may have been unclear.

      I would say this is pretty clear – 100%. No words like “most” or “some”.

      To use your words, this is Wholly false.

      Did you read any of this? A demolition expert’s option on the 9/11 collapses? It explain most, it not all, of the your conspiracy theories:

      http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

      WTC 7:

      Flames were visible from all four sides of the structure.

      These intense fires were left to burn uncontrolled for more than six hours.

      How would the explosives and wiring to set them off survive the fire? Yes, I know, Thermit doesn’t burn…it needs a magnesium fuse…So how was it detonated in the middle of a raging fire?

      They interviewed demolition experts that were on the scene before WTC 7 collapsed. They saw or heard nothing that would indicate explosives were used.

      The fires were minor – review China’s fire as I provided – now that’s a fire!

      Yes – pretty cool to watch. And maybe if thousands of tons of steel falling from hundreds of feet above had hit the building before the fire, it too might have collapsed.

      • I would say this is pretty clear – 100%. No words like “most” or “some”.

        To use your words, this is Wholly false.

        There’s a difference between incidentally supporting some small portion of the vertical load, and being designed to need to support that load. The building was designed so that if the outer surface of the building were punctured or even not present, it would have no bearing on the vertical load, just on the lateral (wind) forces (which would lead to toppling, not collapse). So the building collapse cannot be blamed on some damage to the exterior surface, since the building was never supposed to need that support anyway.

        • DKII,
          Context matters. Black Flag was using his claim that the exterior walls provide no vertical load support to dismiss theories on the collapse. If he had said “some” or “most” or “I think”, that would be different. But Wholly false is pretty strong language that stops discussion.

          Just found this – maybe it will help:

          From http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

          The structural system, deriving from the I.B.M. Building in Seattle, is impressively simple. The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures.

          So the exterior takes all lateral force, and the core takes only the vertical load. But that doesn’t mean the core takes all vertical load.

          The structural integrity of the World Trade Center depends on the closely spaced columns around the perimeter. Lightweight steel trusses span between the central elevator core and the perimeter columns on each floor. These trusses support the concrete slab of each floor and tie the perimeter columns to the core, preventing the columns from buckling outwards.

          The exterior was very important to the overall structural integrity. The initial impact of the plane did not knock the tower over, but that damage combined with the fires reduced the structural integrity to the point of failure.

          They also have a picture of the South Tower tipping over before it collapsed downward.

          The demolition experts also explains how modern skyscrapers cannot topple over. If they tip to a certain point, they collapse, which is what happened to the top half of both towers. They tipped and then collapsed, crushing the rest of the building below them.

          The building was designed so that if the outer surface of the building were punctured or even not present, it would have no bearing on the vertical load

          Please explain how the outer ends of the floors and their trusses would be held up if the outer surface of the building was not present?

          • Todd,

            The exterior was very important to the overall structural integrity. The initial impact of the plane did not knock the tower over, but that damage combined with the fires reduced the structural integrity to the point of failure.

            Baseless speculation.

            First, as the designer described, the impact was about as critical as poking a pencil through a fishnet.

            I repeat – it was designed to suffer jet impacts. You appear to disbelief this, yet wish to belief other fantasies.

            And, as always, IF your case was correct, the damage was asymmetrical – the collapse cannot be symmetrical.

            They also have a picture of the South Tower tipping over before it collapsed downward.

            Exactly – which devastates your theory.

            The tipping is gravity invoked – momentum takes over and without any force it will continue in the direction of its motion.

            But it did not continue – therefore – there are other forces other than gravity that stopped the momentum.

            The demolition experts also explains how modern skyscrapers cannot topple over. If they tip to a certain point, they collapse, which is what happened to the top half of both towers. They tipped and then collapsed, crushing the rest of the building below them.

            This is a bizarre statement.

            Do you wish me to provide a few pictures of skyscrapers tipped over? Check out the earthquake of Mexico City, Kobe and Kyoto.

            ‘The building was designed so that if the outer surface of the building were punctured or even not present, it would have no bearing on the vertical load’

            Please explain how the outer ends of the floors and their trusses would be held up if the outer surface of the building was not present?

            Edit out: “or even not present”

    • Black Flag,
      Your first comment on the “Trip to OZ” was:

      Probably 90% of what you posted can be confirmed.
      The “System” will focus on the 10% that cannot.
      They will claim, thus, 100% of what you posted is false.

      And yet here you are arguing about the 10% because “it’s never happened before”, while ignoring the 90%.

      You routinely accuse anyone who disagrees with you of “not wanting to know the truth”:

      The fear of the implication – the fear of the motive of that implication – is so severe that people will pervert the laws of physics to avoid it, and miss the truth.

      Maybe you’re the one who doesn’t want to know the truth. Its your belief that “all government is evil” that clouds your judgment and allows you to believe that government creates these conspiracies.

      Or you defend these conspiracy theories because they support your belief that “all government is evil”, and serve to show just how evil government really is.

      Further on nano-thermite:

      The high surface area of the reactants within energetic sol-gels allows for the far higher rate of energy release than is seen in “macro” thermite mixtures, making nano-thermites “high explosives” as well as pyrotechnic materials (Tillotson et al 1999). Sol-gel nano-thermites, are often called energetic nanocomposites, metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) or superthermite (COEM 2004, Son et al 2007), and silica is often used to create the porous, structural framework (Clapsaddle et al 2004, Zhao et al 2004). Nano-thermites have also been made with RDX (Pivkina et al 2004), and with thermoplastic elastomers (Diaz et al 2003). But it is important to remember that, despite the name, nano-thermites pack a much bigger punch than typical thermite materials

      I can’t do much better than actually giving the documented reference papers as well.

      Now you insult me* – this isn’t a theory, it’s technical details about thermite and how it works. A theory includes who, how, what, where, when.

      Still lacking a few details.

      I read your conversation with USWeapon late last night. Your dismissal of the need for motive goes against the entire scientific process: **

      1. Make observations & gather facts
      2. Analyze facts
      3. Develop theories
      4. Test theories against observations & facts
      5. Repeat process

      You’re still stuck on #1 and #2. You have to get thru the entire process many times to ‘prove’ your theory. To say you have to know “how” before you can proceed to other steps is ridicules. It is the repeating of this process – throwing out theories that don’t work, finding new facts, creating & testing new theories – that uncovers the truth of who, how, what, where, when. To say you have to determine “how” before anything else stops the scientific process…and then lets your Conspiracy Theory live on. So I guess that works out for you.

      I guess you don’t want to continue the process because it might prove your theory*** wrong.

      * not really, I’m used to you

      ** I’m sure this ‘process’ is not complete/correct, but I’m just winging it here

      *** although since you don’t have a theory yet, it’s pretty hard for anyone to apply the scientific process to it

  42. Anyone else notice that posts are going hodge-post sequence lately??

  43. Todd,

    Ok, you don’t like the word adamant.

    I like the word.

    It was simply not used appropriately.

    Another detail you get caught up on that has no real bearing on the discussion.

    Au contraire!

    There is a MASSIVE difference between opinion and fact.

    When someone tries to turn a fact into an opinion, you should have alarm bells going in your head.

    They do for me.

    And facts do have a bearing on this discussion. That is my central point. The laws of physics do not take holidays in New York.

    Now you say:
    I may have been unclear.
    I would say this is pretty clear – 100%. No words like “most” or “some”.
    To use your words, this is Wholly false.

    I stand corrected. The correct word should have been the core carries MOST of the load.

    Did you read any of this? A demolition expert’s option on the 9/11
    collapses? It explain most, it not all, of the your conspiracy theories:
    http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

    No, it did not.
    It did not explain the sulpherification of the steel, nor did it explain the thermate dust.

    WTC 7:
    Flames were visible from all four sides of the structure.

    911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/fig_5_20_s.jpg
    No fire on this side of the building.

    Small fire here
    911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/wtc7_northface.jpg

    Single floor fire here
    911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/3073.jpg

    (3w’s).debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
    Even this site doesn’t show ‘fire on all four sides’

    NIST does not say fire on four sides, FEMA doesn’t say fire on four sides.
    Hmmm—

    These intense fires

    You must hold a different definition of “intense” –

    This is intense

    This is not
    911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/wtc7_northface.jpg

    were left to burn uncontrolled for more than six hours.

    Windsor Building burned for 24 hours – intensely – event the crane on the roof was still there after. (Much to your surprise I bet)

    How would the explosives and wiring to set them off survive the
    fire?

    One, the fire was not intense.
    Two, fire does not ignite thermate.

    Three – and most importantly which you’ve missed.
    WTC7 did not collapse the same way as WTC1,2. It went down bottom floor first – in the traditional demolition way.

    Yes, I know, Thermit doesn’t burn…it needs a magnesium fuse…So
    how was it detonated in the middle of a raging fire?

    Raging? You have quite of few of extreme words that seem to not be the same definition or degree as normal people may hold.

    This is raging.images.ctv.ca/gallery/photo/china_fire_090211/image0.jpg

    I don’t know. The building was empty for quite awhile… but I could only speculate.

    They interviewed demolition experts that were on the scene before
    WTC 7 collapsed. They saw or heard nothing that would indicate
    explosives were used.

    So the other witnesses that said they did were lying.
    Convently,

    Key Witness to WTC 7 Explosions Dead at 53

    Emergency coordinator and 9/11 witness Barry Jennings has passed away with
    controversy about WTC7 still hot– as the BBC hit piece and NIST report
    have been released to counter Jennings’ exclusive testimony of
    explosions inside Building 7

    More witnesses
    (3w’s).youtube.com/watch?v=i9pjy3fSWYM

    The fires were minor – review China’s fire as I provided – now that’s a fire!
    Yes – pretty cool to watch. And maybe if thousands of tons of steel falling from hundreds of feet above had hit the building before the fire, it too might have collapsed.

    First, WTC 7 was not hit with “thousands” of tons of steel – it was across the street.

    Other buildings, like WTC 5 and 6 where raging with fires AND were hit with the thousands of tons of steel AND did NOT collapse.

    Third, if your contention was indeed correct, a symmetrical collapse is near-impossible – except by design.

    I do notice that you haven’t even bothered to discuss Flight 77 Flight recorder.

    Can I say you are convinced something is wrong there?

  44. Todd

    And yet here you are arguing about the 10% because “it’s never happened before”, while ignoring the 90%.

    YOU JEST!

    I am thinking when you were a kid, you were stumped by the “round peg in the round hole, square peg in the square hole” game.

    There is ZERO percent of steel buildings (+6 stories) matching your examples.

    There are HUNDREDS of examples (all stories) matching mine.

    And you suggest I’m the one sitting on the 10% factor!!

    LoL!

    You routinely accuse anyone who disagrees with you of “not wanting to know the truth”:

    The fear of the implication – the fear of the motive of that implication – is so severe that people will pervert the laws of physics to avoid it, and miss the truth.

    Not true, Todd.

    Agreement with me is not a condition of truth.

    The statement points to the fact (nasty word when talking about 9\11) that even with evidence of explosives – all agencies refused to test or investigate.

    Symmetry in nature is so incredibly rare.

    To make this clear to you, the SETI search – looking for advanced intelligence beyond our own Solar System listens for radio waves. What they are searching for is symmetry. Because symmetry is so rare, the assumption is that for it to exist it must be intelligent life creating it.

    Yet, on one day, three events demonstrated this symmetry. By a force of nature – gravity – upon uneven support. I call “BS” – impossible.

    Its your belief that “all government is evil”

    It is not a belief. It is by definition.

    It is my belief that using violence on non-violent people is evil.

    Government declares a self-appointed right to use violence on non-violent people.

    Therefore, by definition government is evil.

    that clouds your judgment and allows you to believe that government creates these conspiracies.

    Government conspiracies is not a belief.

    I posted already the USS Liberty.
    I posted already the Northwoods file.
    You already know about Reichstag fire, the falseflag attack by Polish troops on a German radio station, the Japanese Manchurian incident that started the Nippon-Sino war, etc., etc.,

    These were done by governments. They were conspiracies.

    Therefore, it is not a belief – but a fact that governments act in this manner.

    It is your belief – contrary to evidence – that the US government is somehow immune for using these tactics and it is that which clouds your eyes.

    Now you insult me* – this isn’t a theory, it’s technical details about thermite and how it works. A theory includes who, how, what, where, when.

    No, its details about NANO-thermite and how it is constructed, mixed and applied.

    Still lacking a few details.

    The papers and the authors are in that post. You are free to lookup whatever details you wish to find.

    I read your conversation with USWeapon late last night. Your dismissal of the need for motive goes against the entire scientific process: **

    1. Make observations & gather facts
    2. Analyze facts
    3. Develop theories
    4. Test theories against observations & facts
    5. Repeat process

    You’re still stuck on #1 and #2.

    Yes, we are.

    We do not have all the facts. The events have not been investigated thoroughly and completely. Basic questions remain wholly ignored and unanswered.

    It is dangerous to move to #3 in the midst of such ignorance.

    You have to get thru the entire process many times to ‘prove’ your theory.

    We have.

    First was to put the events in the right “set” of historical collapse.

    As pointed out, it is a pre-school skill. “Round object in round hole”.

    You seem to have failed at this point.

    • Black Flag,
      I went thru a lot 9/11 websites from all sides this weekend. I didn’t find any credible evidence to support the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. Most take single facts out of context and stretch them to support their theories. This is something that you do quite effectively on a regular basis.

      You also seem to enjoy demeaning and belittling those who disagree with you. Your impatience obviously contributes to this. But these are not good qualities to allow to “shine thru” during discussions. There are many clichés about this – I’ll let you pick one.

      I also find it quite amazing that you are willing to accept so many conspiracy theories. I would expect more critical analysis from someone who claims to use reason and logic in all arguments. This also causes me to question the conclusions you’ve reached on other topics.

      There were many unusual things that happened on 9/11, but none of them violate the laws of physics or nature.

  45. Todd,

    I went thru a lot 9/11 websites from all sides this weekend. I didn’t find any credible evidence to support the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.

    So you have an explanation for the Flight 77 data recorder problem?

    I can’t wait to hear it.

    Look here:
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

    Most take single facts out of context and stretch them to support their theories. This is something that you do quite effectively on a regular basis.

    Hmm, let’s see these single facts:

    The Flight recorder claimed to be from Flight 77 flies a different path and altitude then the one that hit the Pentagon. Oopps…

    WTC building, all of them, collapsed symmetrically into their footprints at free fall.

    Yep, simple – in context and un-stretched. Impossible to explain by the “official” theory within any law of thermodynamics and motion and reality. Easy to explain in the land of make-believe, however.

    You also seem to enjoy demeaning and belittling those who disagree with you. Your impatience obviously contributes to this. But these are not good qualities to allow to “shine thru” during discussions.

    Demean or belittle? I hope not.

    I don’t suffer fools very well. I admit it is a flaw that does get in the way of my message. I’m hard working on it, though.

    I also find it quite amazing that you are willing to accept so many conspiracy theories.

    In fact, it is a conspicuous failure of other people’s labels.

    Any time someone questions government action, they are labeled “Conspiracy Theorist”. It is automatic. No one is ‘allowed’ to question motives of government and their actions.

    I question a lot. I am very skeptical. I think for myself and constantly question authority and “experts” all the time. I am a very smart guy and have a remarkable ability to understand very complex things.

    I am very well trained in mathematics and physics. I have innate understanding with math to a degree like most people understand their mother-tongue. I read and ‘know’ it naturally.

    I am a natural problem solver. That is why I am good at my career. It was a natural outlet for my gift. When I see things, my mind automatically starts “How can I solve this problem?”. It irritates the heck out of my wife.

    These talents and skills allows me see things most others ignore. It is my gift.

    I would expect more critical analysis from someone who claims to use reason and logic in all arguments. This also causes me to question the conclusions you’ve reached on other topics.

    Really?

    Gee, I guess asking for answers before one speculates fails critical analysis. (shrug)

    You want to disprove the speculation first – and declare that sufficient to disprove the physics and the laws of nature.

    I hope you question all my conclusions and use your own facts and reasoning to build your own. In fact, that is my whole purpose here at SUFA – cause you to QUESTION the rote learning you’ve suffered and continue to suffer.

    There were many unusual things that happened on 9/11, but none of them violate the laws of physics or nature.

    Todd, of all your comments, this is the most true.

    None of the events violated the Law of Nature.

    That is my point.

    The “official” story demands such violation.

    Seeing that you missed somethings:

    Federal Judge in Germany: Numerous 9/11 Theories Screaming For Investigation
    (http)
    u2r2h.blogspot.com/2009/12/federal-judge-in-germany-numerous-911.html#ixzz0eP3Kttwi

    9/11 Truth In 9 Minutes
    (http)
    (3w’s).youtube.com/watch?v=x0K4GY7TK28&feature=player_embedded

    NASA Engineer to Speak on Destruction of WTC Buildings
    On Wednesday, October 21, 2009, former NASA engineering executive Dwain Deets, will speak on behalf of more than 900 architects and engineers who cite evidence of explosive demolition at all three World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11 and are calling for a new, independent investigation into their destruction.

    Mechanical Engineer Derek Johnson “Engineering Destruction” part 1 – an 11 part series – quite good.
    (http)
    (3w’s).youtube.com/watch?v=142Ati4GEJQ

    • Black Flag,
      So now we’re jumping to Flight 77 at the Pentagon? I started talking about WTC 1-2, and then you jumped to WTC 7 (and I foolishly followed), and now you want to jump to Flight 77 at the Pentagon.

      What does Flight 77 have to do with what happened in New York?

      Maybe it’s evidence of a conspiracy and points to motive?

      But wait, that would be jumping the gun. First we need all the facts, right?

      So why are you in such a hurry to jump to Flight 77?

      Maybe we’re getting a little too close to the truth about WTC 1-2-7 and you want to move along??

      WTC building, all of them, collapsed symmetrically into their footprints at free fall.

      Every part of this is false.

      * None of the collapses were symmetrical

      The collapses of WTC 1-2 were not symmetrical. They looked that way when I first watched them, but close examination shows otherwise.

      Both WTC 1-2 had walls bulging in. They both tilted and then collapsed.

      WTC 7 was bulging for several hours before it collapsed. The bulging was so obvious the fire fighters could see it with the naked eye. They set up a transit and confirmed it was bulging. When it collapsed, WTC 7 collapsed down but also to the south – towards WTC 1-2 – the side with the damage. The collapse was not symmetrical.

      * They did not fall into their footprints

      Did you see the video’s of WTC 1 & 2 collapsing? Their exterior’s peeled away like a ladder being pushed away and then when they reached about 75-80 degrees (my guess) out from the buildings, they collapsed down.

      A large portion of the North Tower’s exterior that peeled away landed on top of WTC 7. And you call that damage minor?

      Did you see aerial shots of the aftermath? The exteriors of WTC 1-2 were laid out in several directions like ladders. WTC 1-2’s footprints were 1 acre each. The debris field was 16+ acres. They did not fall into their footprints.

      * They were not free fall

      The debris that broken loose from WTC 1-2 was in free fall, but not the buildings themselves. Pictures and videos clearly show large pieces of the exterior walls falling past the lower floors of the building that were still intact.

      For WTC 7, the east penthouse went first, then the west penthouse and the rest of the building. The entire collapse took 15-18 seconds. Not the 6 seconds claimed by conspiracy theories.

      Explosives or Demolition??

      In all the video I watched of the WTC 1-2-7 collapses, there was no sign of explosives going off. All the videos start with a low rumble that grows as the collapse intensifies. There is absolutely no evidence of explosives or demolition.

      This is especially true of WTC 1-2. The videos show the exterior wall getting pulled in by the failing floor trusses, and that causes the section above to tilt and then collapse. Again, absolutely no evidence of explosives or demolition.

      The WTC 1-2 collapses started near the plane impact and crushed down. Not explosives or demolition.

      WTC 7 is tougher. It’s “only” 50 stories, and much wider than WTC 1-2. It’s covered in dust/debris from WTC 1-2, and the entire south side is covered in smoke, so it’s hard to see. But the fact that the entire south side is covered in smoke means the fires are at least on the lower floors, and most likely on multiple floors. In the videos and audios, fire fighters are talking about a hole 18-20 stories high on the south face, that goes maybe 25% of the way into the building. Not minor damage.

      You talked about WTC 7 construction, how Solomon Brothers modified and reinforced the building, etc. But that’s also an “achilles heel”. When you have many small supports, the loss of “some” is not a big deal. When you have a few major supports, the loss or weakening of one can be fatal.

      WTC 7 was also uniquely designed in that its entire upper section above the 7th floor was supported by three main trusses.

      So WTC 7 – falling debris on top, falling debris that damaged the SW corner and created a large hole in the south face, only a few major supports that were over an oil-filled electrical sub-station in the basement in a burning building.

      We were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

      http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
      In the second video on this page, it shows a demolition of a 20-30 story building. There were multiple explosions at multiple levels of the building for 3-4 seconds, and then large explosions at the bases, and then the building crumbles from the bottom. Nothing like any of the WTC collapses.

      I don’t suffer fools very well.

      Pretty obvious.

      I am a natural problem solver. That is why I am good at my career. It was a natural outlet for my gift. When I see things, my mind automatically starts “How can I solve this problem?”. It irritates the heck out of my wife.

      I could have written this exact same sentence. Especially the last line – except I would have put heck in bold. 😉

      • BF and Todd,

        I will move this new post from Todd over to the open mic for tonight, so save the response for there and you can continue your conversation there.

        USW

  46. Black Flag:

    National Geographic Channel has a special on tonight on 9/11 conspiracy. Thought you might want to watch it.

    • Jesse Ventura Takes the Soaring Interest in Conspiracy Theory to TV — And Viewers Are Flocking to It

      ….delivering the 17-year-old channel’s largest-ever premiere audience — 1.6 million people — and maintaining it during subsequent episodes. It held onto high Nielsen ratings despite being panned by critics because the masses love it

  47. Customer:
    Morning,

    Waitress:
    Morning.

    Customer:
    What have you got?

    Waitress:
    Well, there’s egg and bacon,
    egg sausage and bacon
    Egg and spam
    Egg, bacon and spam
    Egg, bacon, sausage and spam
    Spam, bacon, sausage and spam
    Spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam
    Spam, sausage, spam, spam, spam, bacon, spam tomato and spam
    Spam, spam, spam, egg and spam
    Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, spam, spam and spam.

    (Choir: Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Lovely Spam! Lovely Spam!)

    Or Lobster Thermidor aux crevettes with a mornay sauce
    served in a provencale manner with shallots and aubergines
    garnished with truffle pate, brandy and a fried egg on top and spam.

    Wife:
    Have you got anything without spam?

    Waitress:
    Well, the spam, eggs, sausage and spam
    That’s not got much spam in it

    Wife:
    I don’t want any spam!

    Customer:
    Why can’t she have eggs, bacon, spam and sausage?

    Wife:
    That’s got spam in it!

    Customer:
    Hasn’t got much spam in it as spam, eggs, sausage and spam has it?

    (Choir: Spam! Spam! Spam!…)

    Wife:
    Could you do me eggs, bacon, spam and sausage without the spam, then?

    Waitress:
    Iiiiiiiiiiiich!!

    Wife:
    What do you mean ‘Iiiiiiiiiich’? I don’t like spam!

    (Choir: Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!)

    Waitress (to choir):
    Shut up!

    (Choir: Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!)

    Waitress:
    Shut Up! Bloody Vikings!
    You can’t have egg, bacon, spam and sausage without the spam.

    Wife:
    I don’t like spam!

    Customer:
    Shush dear, don’t have a fuss. I’ll have your spam. I love it,
    I’m having spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans,
    spam, spam, spam, and spam!

    (Choir: Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!)

    Waitress:
    Shut Up!! Baked beans are off.

    Customer:
    Well, could I have her spam instead of the baked beans then?

    Waitress:
    You mean spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam,
    spam and spam?

    Choir (intervening):
    Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam!
    Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!
    Spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam.
    Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam!
    Spam spam spam spam!

  48. Canine Weapon says:

  49. I like Spam!

    My daughter, when she was 4, and her Mom went to a fancy restaurant for some occasion (I was traveling at the time).

    She loved the dinner she got (I think it was calamari) – and she yelled out
    “Mom, this is so good! It’s almost as good as Spam!”

    That’s my daughter!! 🙂

  50. Spam is tasty. But not so good when it comes in the form of email or forum bots.

Trackbacks

  1. […] here to read the rest: Tuesday Night Open Mic for January 26, 2010 « Stand Up For America :california, constitution, definition, government, health, house, january-27, lawsuit, […]

%d bloggers like this: