Science and Technology news... :: View topic - Gas Hits $ 5.98 in Democrap Cities! LOL !

Jerry Kraus · Guest

On Jun 28, 3:14 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
[quote]Jerry Kraus wrote:
On Jun 27, 4:11 pm, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkol...@comcast.net> wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote:

Get it straight. Classical physics is totally unable to deal with the
detailed actions of semi-conductiors.

Actually, I tend to agree with you about this. But Quantum Mechanics
can handle the concepts involved, I believe. Relativity is not
required. And Quantum Mechanics is largely inconsistent with
Relativity. They are at odds.

Dear Jerry,
Take a water pump and a channel the water flows in
that it will flow for 50 feet and then fall at the end
into another channel that brings it back to the container
that holds the water that is pumped.

Now place a gap in the channel, so it will fall
before it reaches the end when pumping slowly
The water flow when slow, will not make it to the end of
gap to follow the the end of the channel but will fall into
the return channel.
Increase the water flow and it will jump the gap
and make it to the end,
increase it enough and almost all of it will jump the gap.
A semi conducter is simply a gap in the flow that is adjustable
by any other thing that can change the gap length.
Is that "classical enough?
:)

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
[/quote]
Well, kind of. But Newtonian mechanics was never designed to deal
with electricity. And Maxwell>s electromagnetic equations don>t deal
with electron configurations and valence shells. So, I think Quantum
Mechanics does add some fairly useful concepts. Relativity I think is
more intriguing, counterintuitive speculations simply intended to get
people to thinking in new ways. I don>t think Einstein really
believed Relativity was true. I think he was playing a bit of a
philosophical game.

Guest · Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:40 pm Post subject: Re: Who>s Planning Our Next War?

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 01:14:24 -0700 (PDT), charles q
<q.charles132@gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]First of all I highly doubt that we are going to attack Iran. They are
going to have enough problems with the European countrys freezing all
of their assets and the U.N. is ready to clamp down a lot harder as
far as sanctions go.
[/quote]
Rigt . . . until Iran grabs them by the nuts by cutting back oil
production.

Mitchell Holman · Guest

nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:bdlc64tk8ckd7626bs4nrv4hlsoeiaak33@4ax.com:

[quote]On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:31:03 -0500, Mitchell Holman
NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote:

nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:ik3b649nge2b2phrit0qno7voumv3236c7@4ax.com:

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:42:38 -0700, The Trucker <mikcob@verizon.net
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:59:37 -0400, nobody wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:40:01 -0700, The Trucker <mikcob@verizon.net
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:38:33 -0400, nobody wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:18:47 -0700, The Trucker
mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 06:46:37 -0400, nobody wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:41:03 -0700, The Trucker
mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:19:49 -0500, David Hartung wrote:

The Trucker wrote:

It is not the ranting about the filibuster that is irksome.
It is the pig prancing lie that the Democrats __**control**_
the Congress, and the insinuation that the Democrats are
unable to get things done because they are failing to do what
the people want. They are, in my estimation doing what I
want done to as best they can while fighting the Republicans
who are still embracing fascism.

You know as well as I do, that if the situation were reversed,
you would be doing the same thing.

No, moron. The embrace of minority fascism is a Republican
mainstay. Thus it is utterly impossible for me (or anyone else)
to support the party of democracy and at the same time "be doing
the same thing".

Then you can cite for us posts you made to Usenet condemning the
Dems for doing the same thing just a couple of years ago?

No need, liar. Because you can>t you show me any actual examples
of the Democrats doing "the same thing" in recent history. The
Democrats did not have a veto pen backing them up or did they have
enough votes in the Senate to have done "the same thing".

Your attempt at confusing the issue is so noted. We were speaking
of a party utilizing the fillibuster to stop the legislative
process.

No. You claimed that Democrats did "the same thing". Looking at
the swill you have concocted below we can>t find any _real_ stuff
that says the Democrats used a filibuster to thwart the will of the
people.

Both parties have been guilty of using this tactic on a regular
basis when they weren>t in power. You, however, seem only
interested when Republican>s do it.

No. I maintain that when Democrats use it (**ACTUALLY USE IT** as
opposed to a GOP prancing pig shit claim), they do not use it to
thwart the majority will.

Exactly... You>ve proven my point for me. How funny that the point
sailed right over your head.

Here>s some examples of the Dems utilizing the filibuster to stop
the Republicans:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/30/115911.shtm
l

Judges are not part of the popular will.

Sure they are. People want their judges on the bench. They elected
Bush to, among other things, place judges on the bench who agree
with his philosophy. The Dems obstructed and thwared the
established process.

http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/anwr/

"Drilling on the refuge has been a centerpiece of the Bush
administration>s energy agenda. But pro-drilling lawmakers fell
short of even a majority in the Senate vote, and development of the
refuge will probably not be possible in Congress this year."

SEE BELOW on the same issue

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june05/judges_4-25.html

Judges are not a matter of the public will.

Yes they are and you saying they>re not is just liberal "thought
processes at work".

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2005/dec/15/20051215-122111-5238r/

This one is actually legitimate in that the House of Representatives
passed the bill with a pretty good majority. Even 45 Democrats voted
for it. You seem to have found a case where the Senate Democrats
grew a backbone. A rare find indeed.

Thank you for proving my point even though you attempt to spin away
at the same time.

http://rawstory.com/news08/2008/06/24/feingold-dodd-planning-filibu
st er-of-wiretap-bill/

This one is not legit. The filibuster has yet to happen and
probably won>t happen. The House approved this measure. The
majority of Democrats voted against it. Only one Republican voted
against it. Not a bipartisan bill by any stretch of the imagination.
Bur we will see.

The Dems have both threatened and actually used the filibuster to
stop the legislative process. Sorry, you lose.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jan/27/nation/na-alito27

Judges are not a matter of the public will as expressed by the
House.

Feel free to keep telling yourself that...

http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/archives/002764.html

This one is another attempt by the Republicans to attach a totally
non related drilling of the ANWR to a defense appropriations bill,
and it is not something that came out of the people>s House of
Representatives. This is not a blocking of the will of the people.
It is the usual crap pulled by Republicans in relation to the ANWR.
It is the SAME CRAP AS THE ONE ABOVE:

Spin, spin, spin. Your spin doesn>t change the fact the Dems did
exactly what you rant about when the Republicans did it. They used
the filibuster to obstruct legislation.

"Drilling on the refuge has been a centerpiece of the Bush
administration>s energy agenda. But pro-drilling lawmakers fell
short of even a majority in the Senate vote, and development of the
refuge will probably not be possible in Congress this year."

AT THIS TIME the Republicans had a 3 seat majority in the senate and
they could not even muster a majority on this issue. A filibuster
was totally unnecessary. And again this is the work of Ted "bridge
to nowhere" Stevens.

Shall I go on?

You must get very dizzy from all the spinning and twisting you do to
avoid the truth.

I gave you one of the things you cited and thus I have been corrected
regarding my claim that the Democrats have never done what the
Republicans do as a matter of course. They did, in fact, filibuster
the Patriot Act which had been duly passed by the House with more than
a slim majority. The circumstances, of course, were/are different in
that the Democrats had no veto pen supporting them. And that Patriot
Act filibuster seems to be the only case in which they have actually
thwarted the will of the people>s House. All the rest of your cites
are crap. Judges are not legislation. Judges are appointments by the
(P)resident and have nothing to do with the House or the expressed
will of the people.

I realize this is hard for you to accept, but when people elect a
President, part of that "will of the people" is that his judges will
go through the nomination process and be confirmed.

"Senate Democrats who continue to use obstructionist
tactics and delay an up or down vote on these nominees."
George Bush, July 6, 2004. In fact the Senate Democrats
have voted to confirm all but 3 of Bush>s 198 nominations,
compared to the GOP blocking 102 of Clinton>s nomintions.

Failure to do so
leaves vacancies in important positions. The Dems abused their power
of the filibuster simply for political reasons -- deal with it.

"Republicans systematically kept President Clinton>s nominees
from even getting hearings in the Judiciary Committee, although
the Democratic President regularly consulted with Republicans
in advance and offered moderate nominees. More than 60 Clinton
nominees were "filibustered" in committee --- not allowed to
come to the floor for a vote."
www.house.gov/cummings/cbc/cbcpress/2003nov12a.htm

I guess Mitchie has missed the whole point of the discussion. I>ve
said that both sides are guilty of utilizing the filibuster.
[/quote]

It would take a real Nobody to equate the Dems voting down
3 Bush picks with the Repugs refusing to even allow voting on
*60* Clinton picks.

Sheesh...........

Guest · Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:41 pm Post subject: Re: Who>s Planning Our Next War?

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 01:14:24 -0700 (PDT), charles q
<q.charles132@gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]I would think that the average Iranian citizen is
not going to go to long without anything because of the sanctions that
will be imposed on their country and will sooner or later start to
revolt agaisnt their government.
[/quote]

Gee I remember that argument before and Albright saying it was worth
killing 1.5 million infants over. And then Bush after 10 years it
saying it didn>t really work out that way and we should invade. But it
was spelt slightly differently then.

Guest

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:54:16 -0400, "basilod" <basilod@verizon.net>
wrote:

[quote]The value of the dollar is
falling and hence the prices of everything denominated in dollar are going
up!
[/quote]

It makes one wonder what the DOW is really doing given it>s poor
performance even in dollars.

I haven>t seen 2008 added into the DOW Gold ratio.
http://immobilienblasen.blogspot.com/2007/05/dow-vs-gold-chart.html

Guest

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:28:30 -0700 (PDT), Jim Austin
<bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

[quote]The fear of terrorism was instituted by terrorists.
[/quote]

Wrong no sale. We could have responded with courage. And did
initially. Until the powers that be saw more gain for themselves by
peddling fear.

Guest

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:28:30 -0700 (PDT), Jim Austin
<bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

[quote]On Jun 26, 1:18 pm, lorad...@cs.com wrote:
On Jun 26, 11:16 am, Jim Austin <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
distracting drivel.

Try this instead:
'State Instituted Fear as a Means of Control?'

I tried it. It wasn>t very good -- a bit too broad.

The fear of terrorism was instituted by terrorists. Those succumbing
to the fear seek safety through groveling before terrorists,
[/quote]
that would be like withdrawing the marines from Lebanon after the
Beirut bombing? Or quietly pulling our troops out of Saudi Arabia
after 9-11 and Ossama>s demand that we do so?

[quote]acceding
to their demands, surrendering. Those succumbing to fear of terrorists
advocate liberal policies.
[/quote]
Reagan and W are now liberals?

[quote]
Those refusing to succumb to fear of terrorists demand resistance,
opposition, retaliation to terrorists.
[/quote]
No they demand law, the constitution and respect for our values.

The fearful seek refuge in a big daddy, demand torture, and live their
lives centered on the fear of an occasional terrorist incident and are
willing to sacrifice all we value to gain the ILLUSION of having
diminished the potential of attack.

You>re pissing your pants. You>ll throw out the Constitution all our
values and call your neighbors traitors for not being afraid like you.

The very vehemence of your attacks on your fellow countrymen shows how
afraid you are. You>re like a rat on a raft trying to climb up over
his neighbors. You>re scared to death and it makes you desperate. And
dangerous.

Robert J. Kolker · Guest

Spaceman wrote:

[quote]What about them.
magnets and force on the electrons and perfect aiming
of the course changes of each electrons path do all that.
Nothing to do with "relativity".
It>s all classical ballistics.
You can>t explain an electron path with ballistics?
That is yet more proof,
They have skipped a lot of the stuff that actually works
fine and jumped to the "church version" instead.
[/quote]
Why should an electron hitting a phosphorus atom make it emit light?

The answer is not in classical electrodynamics.

Bob Kolker

>

alexy · Guest

4105 Dead <zepp22114105@finestplanet.com> wrote:

[quote]On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:09:19 -0400, alexy <nospam@asbry.net> wrote:

Video61@tcq.net wrote:

On Jun 27, 11:12 pm, alexy <nos...@asbry.net> wrote:
Vide...@tcq.net wrote:
i want alex to be honest and say that the fed assumed some of wall
streets debt.

Sure. Tell me who on wall street had their debt assumed, who they owed
that money to, and point me to articles saying that the fed assumed
that debt.

I>m well aware of actions they took to prop up assets, but once you
show me info on this debt assumption, I would be glad to acknowledge
it.

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

try as you may to quibble/wiggle out of this, this says it all,

June 27 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve agreed in March to take on
$30 billion of Bear Stearns Cos. assets after JPMorgan Chase & Co.
said the portfolio was too risky for the company to absorb.
Right, so the fed took those risky ASSETS that JPM didn>t want to buy.
I thought you were going to provide an example where they assumed
DEBT?

Still waiting.

Although I don>t expect much from someone who can>t tell the
difference between an asset and a liability.

The Fed has not assumed the debt.
Thank you. Maybe you have the bona fides to get Vid to pay attention.[/quote]
I>m not holding my breath, though.

[quote]They have, however, insured it,
which of course leaves open the possibility that they will have to pay
it at some future point.
Which is what makes the asset more valuable.[/quote]
No debt forgiveness involved here. The debtor remains fully obligated
to pay. The guarantee is just to the CREDITOR, saying that the Fed
will step in if the debtor fails. As I said before, it is a way of
propping up assets.

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Guest

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 11:31:54 -0400, nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

[quote]
And the electricity will come from where? Libs are against oil, coal,
nuclear, wind, and water power.
[/quote]

Wind and water too? You don>t think you>re getting a bit carried away
? Or lying?

Guest

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:35:43 -0700, 4105 Dead
<zepp22114105@finestplanet.com> wrote:

[quote]Although I don>t expect much from someone who can>t tell the
difference between an asset and a liability.

The Fed has not assumed the debt. They have, however, insured it,
which of course leaves open the possibility that they will have to pay
it at some future point.
[/quote]
And some see that as a certainty and hence an assumption of the debt.
;->

Spaceman · Guest

Robert J. Kolker wrote:
[quote]Spaceman wrote:

What about them.
magnets and force on the electrons and perfect aiming
of the course changes of each electrons path do all that.
Nothing to do with "relativity".
It>s all classical ballistics.
You can>t explain an electron path with ballistics?
That is yet more proof,
They have skipped a lot of the stuff that actually works
fine and jumped to the "church version" instead.

Why should an electron hitting a phosphorus atom make it emit light?
[/quote]
Why should a periodic shooting of golfballs hitting a fan make it spin at a
certain rate
to produce a "frequency of the fan blade"?
You can>t think classical at all huh Rob?

[quote]The answer is not in classical electrodynamics.
[/quote]
Maybe to those that don>t get "classical physics" because
they must have "skipped over it" in school I suppose.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

Guest

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 01:30:44 +1000, <tHe_PC_JeLLy BeAn!!> wrote:

[quote]
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:ba47d09e-43f0-4719-b650-a993d02c97bc@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 1:18 pm, lorad...@cs.com wrote:
On Jun 26, 11:16 am, Jim Austin <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
distracting drivel.

Try this instead:
'State Instituted Fear as a Means of Control?'

I tried it. It wasn>t very good -- a bit too broad.

The fear of terrorism was instituted by terrorists. Those succumbing
to the fear seek safety through groveling before terrorists, acceding
to their demands, surrendering. Those succumbing to fear of terrorists
advocate liberal policies.

Those refusing to succumb to fear of terrorists demand resistance,
opposition, retaliation to terrorists.
[/quote]

I>m thinking about his argument. I see John Wayne in one scenario?
What>s he do? He walks into the bar, up to the guy he>s got an issue
with and gasp - TALKS TO HIM.

Austen looks more like Peter Lorre in Casablanca, whiney and scared
looking for a way out. He>ll slip up to someone and cowardly stick a
knife in their ribs or pay someone else to do it for him, but actual
face to face talk is too scary. And as the krauts haul him out of the
cafe he pleads "Rick, help me!!!!!"

Jim imagines himself John Wayne, but he>s really Peter Lorre. He>s
more inclined to faceless vandalism than face to face talk. which is
to say typical of the new right.

charles q · Guest

On Jun 28, 8:41 am, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
[quote]On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 01:14:24 -0700 (PDT), charles q

q.charles...@gmail.com> wrote:
I would think that the average Iranian citizen is
not going to go to long without anything because of the sanctions that
will be imposed on their country and will sooner or later start to
revolt agaisnt their government.

Gee I remember that argument before and Albright saying it was worth
killing 1.5 million infants over. And then Bush after 10 years it
saying it didn>t really work out that way and we should invade. But it
was spelt slightly differently then.
[/quote]
It>s not going to hapen,to many in this country are tired of war at
this point as I am. If the world in general keeps clamping down on
them and hard with more tougher sanctions I believe in the end they
will come to an agreement with the worlds leaders. Hey, look at North
Korea and they said that would never happen but it did. Irans people
are going to get tired of being left out without anything just like
those in North Korea were. It may take time but it sure beats another
skirmish

charles q · Guest

On Jun 27, 9:42 pm, NOMOREWARFORISRAEL <NOMOREWAR_FORISR...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[quote]Who>s Planning Our Next War?
By Patrick J. Buchanan

VDARE.COM -http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/080626_planning.htm

June 26, 2008

Of the Axis-of-Evil nations named in his State of the Union in 2002,
President Bush has often said, "The United States will not permit the
world>s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world>s most
destructive weapons."

He failed with North Korea. Will he accept failure in Iran, though
there is no hard evidence Iran has an active nuclear weapons program?

William Kristol of The Weekly Standard said Sunday a U.S. attack on
Iran after the election is more likely should Barack Obama win.
Presumably, Bush would trust John McCain to keep Iran nuclear free.

Yet, to start a third war in the Middle East against a nation three
times as large as Iraq, and leave it to a new president to fight,
would be a daylight hijacking of the congressional war power and a
criminally irresponsible act. For Congress alone has the power to
authorize war.

Yet Israel is even today pushing Bush into a pre-emptive war with a
naked threat to attack Iran itself should Bush refuse the cup.

In April, Israel held a five-day civil defense drill. In June, Israel
sent 100 F-15s and F-16s, with refueling tankers and helicopters to
pick up downed pilots, toward Greece in a simulated attack, a dress
rehearsal for war. The planes flew 1,400 kilometers, the distance to
Iran>s uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.

Ehud Olmert came home from a June meeting with Bush to tell Israelis:

"We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian
threat. ... I left with a lot less question marks regarding the means,
the timetable restrictions and American resoluteness. ...

"George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the
need to vanquish it, and intends to act on the matter before the end
of his term. ... The Iranian problem requires urgent attention, and I
see no reason to delay this just because there will be a new president
in the White House seven and a half months from now."

If Bush is discussing war on Iran with Ehud Olmert, why is he not
discussing it with Congress or the nation?

On June 6, Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz threatened, "If Iran
continues its nuclear weapons program, we will attack it." The price
of oil shot up 9 percent.

Is Israel bluffing—or planning to attack Iran if America balks?

Previous air strikes on the PLO command in Tunis, on the Osirak
reactor in Iraq and on the presumed nuclear reactor site in Syria last
September give Israel a high degree of credibility.

Still, attacking Iran would be no piece of cake.

Israel lacks the stealth and cruise-missile capacity to degrade Iran>s
air defenses systematically and no longer has the element of surprise.
Israeli planes and pilots would likely be lost.

Israel also lacks the ability to stay over the target or conduct
follow-up strikes. The U.S. Air Force bombed Iraq for five weeks with
hundreds of daily runs in 1991 before Gen. Schwarzkopf moved.

Moreover, if Iran has achieved the capacity to enrich uranium, she has
surely moved centrifuges to parts of the country that Israel cannot
reach—and can probably replicate anything lost.

Israel would also have to over-fly Turkey, or Syria and U.S.-occupied
Iraq, or Saudi Arabia to reach Natanz. Turks, Syrians and Saudis would
deny Israel permission and might resist. For the U.S. military to let
Israel over-fly Iraq would make us an accomplice. How would that sit
with the Europeans who are supporting our sanctions on Iran and want
the nuclear issue settled diplomatically?

And who can predict with certitude how Iran would respond?

Would Iran attack Israel with rockets, inviting retaliation with
Jericho and cruise missiles from Israeli submarines? Would she close
the Gulf with suicide-boat attacks on tankers and U.S. warships?

With oil at $135 a barrel, Israeli air strikes on Iran would seem to
ensure a 2,000-point drop in the Dow and a world recession.

What would Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria do? All three are now in
indirect negotiations with Israel. U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq
could be made by Iran to pay a high price in blood that could force
the United States to initiate its own air war in retaliation, and to
finish a war Israel had begun. But a U.S. war on Iran is not a
decision Bush can outsource to Ehud Olmert.

Tuesday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Michael Mullins left for
Israel. CBS News cited U.S. officials as conceding the trip comes
"just as the Israelis are mounting a full court press to get the Bush
administration to strike Iran>s nuclear complex."

Vice President Cheney is said to favor U.S. strikes. Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates and Mullins are said to be opposed.

Moving through Congress, powered by the Israeli lobby, is House
Resolution 362, which demands that President Bush impose a U.S.
blockade of Iran, an act of war.

Is it not time the American people were consulted on the next war that
is being planned for us?

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

Ron Paul Speaks Out Against War With Iran:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=87

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7354M1QmGYQ&fmt=18

Ron Paul Floor Speech on Iran & Foreign Policy

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=83

House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran
America’s powerful pro-Israel lobby pressures the US Congress

by Andrew W Cheetham

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9377

Re: AIPAC is pushing us to war with Iran for Israel
See Video:

http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2007/10/re-aipac-is-pushing-u...

Here is a tiny URL for the above one:

http://tinyurl.com/22br9u

Israeli Threat Spikes Our Oil Prices, We Pay More For This (click on
the pic at the following URL to access the youtube video):

http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/06/israeli-threat-spikes...

Here is a tiny URL of the above one:

http://tinyurl.com/5drqxl

Iran War Resolution May Be Passed Next Week:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=91563

Scott McClellan Questioned about Neocon Push for Iraq War

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LktFfHciyqg&feature=PlayList&p=9B04282...

Here is a tiny URL for the above:

http://tinyurl.com/6qpcnx

http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/06/scott-mcclellan-quest...

Here is the tiny URL for the above one:

http://tinyurl.com/6gzo4o

Pat Buchanan>s 'Whose War?' article is a must read as well via the
following URL:

Whose War (Israel>s war!)?:

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

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

Subject: Re: Ron Paul Speaks Out Against War With Iran

Date: Friday, June 27, 2008, 3:08 PM

Just saw the following comment post by David Robertson (of Inverness,
Scotland) at the following URL:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=83#comments

NOMOREWAR_FORISRAEL Says:

June 27th, 2008 at 5:53 pm

Dear David,

Just saw the following post by you as such has been my same exact
concern as well. See the following URLs when you can:

http://NOMOREWARFORISRAEL.BLOGSPOT.COM

http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM

David Robertson, Inverness, Scotland Says:

June 27th, 2008 at 5:45 am
The United States has about 10,000 nuclear warheads while Israel has
an estimated 300. I have also read that Israel has the targeting codes
for America’s nuclear arsenal which they acquired through espionage.
In other words these allies, or any one of them acting alone, could
“obliterate” Iran as Hillary Clinton promised she would do if Iran
attacked Israel. She didn’t say what she would consider to be an
“attack”. To me the much more profound threat to peace is Israel who
continues to beat the war drums, to plan to bomb Iran and is promoting
this current resolution to blockade Iran. Americans are being
manipulated to act against their own best interests. Their blood and
treasure has been used and is being used to build a world empire for
an alien power. I have tried to post warnings in different ways on
many blogs but have the definite impression that my words are falling
on deaf ears.
[/quote]
We also have targeting codes for everybody else in the world,thats old
news. It doesn>t mean that we will use them. There isn>t one highly
developed country with a decent intelligence infrastructure that
doesn>t have the same info that the other guy has


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Economy Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 479, 480, 481 Next
Page 3 of 481