Slashdot Mirror

Connecting The Many Undersea Cut Cable Dots - 9 Or More? http://www.rense.com/general80/cable.htm This is quite an interesting comment. It claims there may be as many a nine cables down now.

Also, large machines orbiting his house:

http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx2.htm

The Black Ops boys must have money to burn if they can send a gdam CHINOOK to photograph him

How about these... check out the videos, amazing : http://www.rense.com/Datapages/mystmachinedata.htm

These seem to be HUGE machines in orbit around Earth.

http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm

This is silly, not doing reprocessing has not done anything to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. This process has been used for a long time in France, Britain, and other countries, and there has never been any material reported missing. In the case of Iran for example, it was the North Koreans that gave them access to materials and tech. Some missing material from the break up of the Soviet Union, well who knows what was going on there at the time.

The reason for the US not doing this is quite simple: there has been no new nuclear power plants built, very little if any money into research, and a general lack of interest in regards to nuclear energy aside from military use. Progress has stagnated; the amount of money required to bring everything up do date and allow reprocessing to be possible is more than what congress is willing to spend.

However, recent reports suggest there may be a renewed interest in this area. The main advantage being that the spent fuel is much less dangerous several orders of magnitude faster.

It's pretty easy when you look at the vote tallies for your county and see that the candidate you voted for is showing zero votes. That makes it obvious that the original count is wrong.

Uncertainty is when you vote is being counted by black box machines made by a company that employs know felons in key management areas.

Uncertainty is when 56% of the population doesn't even show up to vote, because they do not feel represented by either of the two available choices.

"Uncertainty" according to whose standard?

It's pretty easy when you look at the vote tallies for your county and see that the candidate you voted for is showing zero votes. That makes it obvious that the original count is wrong. It's difficult to spot shifting vote numbers once the numbers get higher, which is why we need UN election oversight. This is a measure we insist on in other countries but yet refuse in our own. Uncertainty is when you vote is being counted by black box machines made by a company that employs know felons in key management areas. Strangely the people put in power by this voting system, don't want the system to change, funny that. True election reform which would break us out of our dysfunctional two party system, such as approval voting or instant runoff voting will never pass through a legislature put in power by a strong two party system. Uncertainty is when 56% of the population doesn't even show up to vote, because they do not feel represented by either of the two available choices.

It's a indisputable fact that Jews control the music and movie industries. They always have.

Thus it should come as absolutely no surprise that filthy, greedy jew Gene Simmons, who not surprisingly advocates genocide against Muslims, is advocating suing white kids.

Oh I get it, I just happen to see profit differently than you do. I see anything that makes the average Canadian have a better quality of life as profit and the high dollar does that.

What you seem to miss is that the dollar is high because the economy is strong; if that changes so will the dollar.

And before I address any of your other points individually, how would any of your concerns be different if the dollar was weak? Would we be taking less oil out of the ground if it were cheaper to do so? No, of course not.

If we continue to lean on a low dollar between now and then, when it happens we'll have nothing left going for us except the exchange rate. If the government manipulates the dollar to push it down to say .80US for the next twenty years, then expect the news headlines in 2032 to read Cdn$ on par with Peso.

If one is to presume, as you do that the dollar is high only for a short time, then it is the best thing that could have happenned to us. The reason Canada does far less manufacturing than the US is that while the US has been able to take advantage of newer technologies to keep its manufacturing competive(relative to us); Canada's manufacturing has had the worst of both worlds; more expensive than a third world country, but less advanced/efficient than a first. Having industries subsidized by a low dollar does not create strength, it creates a dependency on said dollar.

And thirty years of a low dollar did not solve that problem, so how would thirty-one years solve it?

I have no idea. I have never been part of the forestry industry nor followed it closely. How much do you think, and based on hearsay or can you actually link to some numbers?

Hint, oilsands is an ugly, ugly business. Don't count on the ugly pictures to get your reserve estimates. According to the Alberta Energy website aproximately 2% of the oilsands have been extracted to date. There is an estimated 174 billion barrels in the oilsands alone; there is more oil under Canada than any other country in the world except Saudi Arabia. The oil won't last forever, but don't act like we're going to run out any time soon. (or to put it in your term, we'll be raping it for at least the next 30 years)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_Oil_Sands
• http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/OurBusiness/oilsands.asp
• http://www.rense.com/general37/petrol.htm

I love the foreign ownership debate, mostly because its a load of crap. If its true that companies with foreign holdings are ripping off the countries they are doing business, just plundering and taking all the loot home, then we're in great shape; Canadian companies have greater foreign holdings than foreign companies have in Canada. (I however, tend to think its largely irrellevant to the local economy who owns the company)

Arrr sounds like the scurvy gov'ment dogs be usin Tesla's Death Ray in smaller form factor. Keep me parrot away from that thing! Arrr!!

Let's see. World War 2. FDR, Democrat, won a war. Big Business types like Henry Ford tried to tie patriotism to appeasing the Nazis because of his right-wing beliefs. And he was awarded the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, a Nazi decoration for distinguished foreigners.

Picture of Henry Ford being rewarded by the Nazis. I'm sure he was "a good American."

I'm sure the Bush family wouldn't get involved with... ah, whoopsie. ...newly-uncovered government documents in The National Archives and Library of Congress reveal that Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, served as a business partner of and U.S. banking operative for the financial architect of the Nazi war machine from 1926 until 1942, when Congress took aggressive action against Bush and his "enemy national" partners...

Conservatives. Always on the wrong side of history. Take the Kosovo War. Remember that one? Let's look at a few comments on that...

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."

-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

(Why was Sean such a surrender monkey in the face of a tyrant and his concentration camps?)

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."

-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99

(Would this be the same Kosovo War that resulted in ZERO US COMBAT DEATHS?)

"I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag"

-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

(Is this the same Milosevic that raised the white flag? Why did Senator Nickles question the abilities of our brave boys in uniform?) ...and finally...

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

I'm sorry: you were saying "something, something, peace-activist liberals, something, non-confrontational"?

Was that it.

Yeah. I thought so.

You're on the wrong side of history again, and there are enough Progressive Americans (you know, the ones that value the US Constitution and don't treat it like a dish rag) that are willing to remind you of it every single day.

I'm just waiting for someone to mention BJs. Whoo boy, do I have a reply for that!!!

1966 U.S. Army dispenses Bacillus subtilis variant niger throughout the New York City subway system. More than a million civilians are exposed when army scientists drop lightbulbs filled with the bacteria onto ventilation grates.

An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland.

-- Adolf Hitler: when announcing the Gestapo.

Sound similar to anyone you know? In fact George W. Bush's grandfather laundered money for the Nazis, so if you're going to go into comparisons George W. Bush is a lot closer than anyone in Iran.

I'm not the OP, but I'm convinced my diet-soda-guzzling grandfather's series of (benign) brain tumors were caused by aspartame.

For info on how aspartame (aka NutraSweet) was originally approved, try this: How Aspartame Became Legal - The Timeline. The story of aspartame abolutely appalling. Google can provide you with much, much more info.

Nah, the GP must mean the United States and China

Read this and weep.

Actually if you ever do go visit yasukuni, it says precisely that and more. It will show a history of ww2 which is completely different than the one I learned in school . Might be due to the fact of who the financal backers were for the rennovations a few years ago.

it is a very interesting musuem covering more than just ww2, and quite sad really (there is a large room with small photographs of the war dead covering the walls.

the below links support the GP's post, infact you will find a copy of the text for the nanking "incident" which leaves out a number of facts.

http://www.rense.com/general28/tudg.htm

http://www.tokyonodoko.com/The%20good%20life/Yasuk uni.html

This article is missing some points so I guess I'll fill in for ye. When you lower your food intake it turns on a dormant ability we all must surely have, but we never use it. Food is too plentiful so we overeat. In overeating we deny ourselves from turning this "engine" within us to On. Call it the I WANT TO LIVE ENGINE. When we cut back on our food intake our body begins to consume whatever we breathe in, so when we breathe in viruses, molds, bacteria our body becomes a food scavenger and consumes all the little critters for food.

That's why this article is misleading. It is saying those people are not getting the food energy required, but they are. The beauty of it is though that in consuming the airborne microorganisms those people are burning the infectious disease organisms as a Food Source. hahahaha Their body isn't just eating well, it is giving them a longer lifespan of Freedom from Diseases caused by the consuming of disease organisms that are proliferating inside the rest of us.

Now you take these cancerous growths & malignancies. People have been conditioned to fear cancer. But what if those cancers are the normal cells that are trying to LIVE FOREVER and have discovered the way to overgrow? Our entire medical healthcare community is killing the cells that have discovered the superenergy secret that could give us everlasting life. It isn't about Anger; it's about Peace. An afraid mind is a closed off mind. Open yourself to the possibilities that the old dude sitting in the cell next to yours for the past 40 years has the map of escape > http://www.newpath4.com/40yearstolife.htm by facing your enemy, facing your greatest foe. Sometimes, many times, our greatest foe is us, our quiver-load of preconceptions about religious folk for instance.

Ever since I fell out of the truck in 1986 because a pharmacist left the Warning Labels off a new drug called Meclofenamate, and then got hit by a 1,000 lb. bale 3 times because it bounced on me, I've been trying various nutrition products in an attempt to get some body energy back, maybe return to work, make a few bucks, help my family some. The answer I have found is to try and restore cellular function. Several months ago I found out that Acetyl-L-Carnitine helps restore cell mitochondria. I've been taking it about 2+ months and it has helped a good deal. I've been able to do more housework. At 55 years of age after a lifetime of serious accidents and a drowning, I try to not get upset if I never get my energy back then so be it. In 2006 I tried Nitroxy 3. It hit me with an awesome tiredness in my neck and shoulder muscles that was indescribable. I felt so incredibly WASTED that even now I still feel it, 15 months later. I recently bought a piece of bungey cord and using it for stretches. Yesterday I was researching about products that would give my body more Oxygen. Maybe the shortage of oxygen is why I have not been getting the energy needed to drag this 280 pound body around eh? Here's the link > http://www.healingedge.net/store/more_oxyoxc.html and another one > http://www.rense.com/products/oxy-c1.htm . A low oxygen state could very well be why the Acetyl-L-Carnitine has had a limited success so far. Those pages have plenty of product information. It seems there's a product called Magnesium Peroxide that has peroxide and some ozone {H2O2 & O3} locked and binded with Magnesium, so when you take a capsule and it hits the stomach it releases those inside and it enters the bloodstream. It is unfortunate for us living today, eating all this tasty food, thinking we have EVERYTHING, when it is the everything that robs us of what oxygen we have. Eating excess food instead of breath-consuming the airborne disease organisms robs us

How long before these things are being 'tested' in Iraq?

Done already ? From http://www.rense.com/general40/secret.htm :
"A nightmarish US super weapon reportedly was employed by American ground forces during chaotic street fighting in Baghdad. The secret tank-mounted weapon was witnessed in all its frightening power [...] Searching for a description, al-Ghazali said it appeared to be shooting concentrated lightning bolts rather than just ordinary flames."

See also http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8361811662 480560988

The famous photo-series mentioned in the initial post has one where Congressman Albert Thomas winks back at a LBJ.

http://www.rense.com/general41/wew.htm

Considering the mischief Jews have caused throughout Russia's history, it doesn't bother me at all that Putin is cracking down on Kasparov and his friends.

Yes. I've even seen pictures on the news at night of Monsanto agents holding guns to farmer's heads, preventing them from buying standard seeds without the terminator gene. Someone stop these bastards from forcing their seeds down people's throats!

You too? I'll call your "Bullshit" and double.

As part of sweeping "economic restructuring" implemented by the Bush Administration in Iraq, Iraqi farmers will no longer be permitted to save their seeds. Instead, they will be forced to buy seeds from US corporations

http://www.rense.com/general59/newiraqlawoutlaws.h tm

Yes, "forced".

By now, everyone should have wised up to the fact that when Bush uses the word "freedom" he means freedom for _corporations_. But when they passed a law forcing the cradle of civilization to buy Monsanto annually I think it highlighted just how clinically mad this administration is.

No, but enforcing income tax is illegal - please read about Joe(Joseph) Banister, Larken Rose, and House Resolution 2525:

http://www.halexandria.org/dward295.htm
http://www.halexandria.org/dward294.htm
http://www.halexandria.org/dward293.htm
http://www.rense.com/general66/irstrial.htm
http://www.royalrife.com/banister.html
http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Update2005 -06-28.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=44956

if you knew the history behind this subject you wouldn't have posted what you did. there were and still are powerful banking interests (particularally in europe) that tried many times before 1913 to get that type of law or amendment cuz americans WEREN'T taxed before on their personal income. they finally succeeded in 1913 by only getting a handful of legislators to ratify it (at midnight i think) cuz THEY KNEW they (the fed) couldn't get it passed any other way. thats one of the main reasons they always failed in the past, then soft money and coprorate interest tooks its first huge victory and stranglehold on our govt. and an amendment to the constitution requires a 2/3 approval! NOT ONE PENNY OF OUR INCOME TAX GOES TO PAY FOR GOVT. WAGES, SERVICES OR ANYTHING OF THAT KIND. its goes to pay off the federal reserve banking system that issues our money. the power to do that switched from the U.S. GOVT (which is always how it should have stayed, thats how its set up in the declaration of independence! many presidents before this warned against changing it. see jefferson & lincoln for example). by paying off the fed i mean our income tax goes to pay off the interest they (the fed) charge the govt. for issuing the money! it was all set up that way by construction, not by our govt., but by the central banks of europe. a president, i forget which one, but it was within the last 50 years if memory serves me, started a commission which investigated this and it found indeed that not one penny of the personal income tax paid by americans goes to anything but paying off the fed's interest that they charge the govt. for the issuing. (i would think that a president would know that already). see here for more info about what happened to jfk when he issued executive order 11,100: http://www.rense.com/general44/exec.htm (i'm not saying thats the sole reason why he was assassinated, but i'm pretty sure its a safe bet that it was a factor of some importance).
AND ppl who care about things being done the right way in govt., the way they were set up to be done by our fore-fathers and constitution ARE NOT kooks, they're the ones who care. apparently not you.

Where to begin with the errors in this post. Let's start with:

"12 uneducated Muslim extremists"

Uneducated? Is that what you called Mohamed Atta with his Architecture degree from Cairo Univeristy and his Masters degree obtained in Germany? Or Abdulaziz al-Omari, also with a University degree? Many of the hijackers were educated. Not that all of them needed to be to wield a box cutter and cut up a few flight crew members in order to execute someone elses well-conceived hijack plan.

"They were able to fly the aircraft with pinpoint precision with only commercial pilot licenses at best (airline transport licenses really are required for this level of precision"

Wrong. ATP certificates are required to act as pilot in command of an airliner, but most flights you can take on an airline are flown 50% or more by the First Officers (copilot) who only have commercial pilots certificate. They will frequently fly one entire leg of a flight from takeoff to landing and let the captain fly the next leg. This is how they build the flight time to become an ATP. You must have already demonstrated proficiency in precision instrument flying and high performance manuevers to get your commercial certificate. There are no additional "precision" maneuvers learned for an ATP cert. It is only a matter of hours (1500 PIC) and an additional flight and written test. As a licensed Private Pilot, I have to say you sound like you know little about the subject. It is more difficult to fly precision manuevers in a Cessna 172 than in the airliners flown by these pilots, which are far more stable and easy to manuever, particulary when already in flight and trimmed for cruise. Nothing but throttle, yolk, and rudder were needed to accomplish the 9/11 hijackers task, which are the most elementary flight controls. Most home 'pilots' flying a computer flight simulator at 100% realism settings can accomplish the same feat with ease after a little practice. The hijacker pilots had real flight training by comparison. Now if you want difficuly, try shooting an ILS approach in a Cessna 172 in IFR conditions with winds gusting and moderate to heavy turbulance. Once you can do that, then you can discuss this with me from a position of authority.

"Further, they managed to vaporize all but a supposed APU wheel. "

Yeah, that and the other few thousand other pieces of wreckage, including the landing struts, engine sections, larger pieces of fuselage, etc. I guess you missed the photos of the other parts, so that means they don't exist, right? I mean if a website you found says there was only one piece of wreckage and has a picture of it, that must be right, huh? By the way, you don't have to melt aluminum or titanium in a high speed collision with reinforced concrete. It will mostly atomize into dust upon impact, as can be see in decades old military crash test videos found all over the net.

Let's see if you can count more than one piece of wreckage here:

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

And learn what happens when jets meet reinforced concrete walls, like those in the Pentagon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8

Maybe this will explain some of the many mysterious hum phenomena.

I believe that research in the field would have sped up if Einstein hadn't so been so public in his denouncing it.

As far as I can tell, Einstein's arguments did nothing to slow research in the field. Most people were on Bohr's side by that time.

Slowly Bohr managed to win and lets face it the EPR paper was an embarresment, then whoom as you said everyonewas on the qm band wagon.

The EPR paper wasn't an "embarrassment", it remains one of the most important papers on foundational QM, and the QM bandwagon started as soon as Heisenberg published his paper.

I remember that the current BB model had to be revisited to account for new theories in QCD/QED.

The main influence that quantum field theory has had on Big Bang cosmology is that the Higgs boson inspired the invention of inflationary cosmology. Far from modifying the BB picture, inflation solved a number of its long-standing problems.

QFT has also had influences in other areas of now-accepted cosmology, such as dark matter, but that doesn't affect the Big Bang much.

I tried to locate the article and found this one. It's interesting what he has to say, especially about the shift in ideas. I don't know much about the physics (nor, sadly the time to get into again) to say one way or the other. Maybe you've heard of it. If so what do you think? http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

Lerner is a pretty well known crackpot. (See Ned Wright's discussion here. He and Lerner had a back-and-forth and Wright eventually gave up arguing with him.) On the list of signatories are other people like the founders of Steady State cosmology, a theory which failed decades ago.

As for the scientific criticisms, yes Big Bang cosmology needs inflation and dark matter. One man's "fudge factor" is another's new theory. It's absurd to claim that BB cosmology has not made any predictions; it predicts an expanding universe, the existence and blackbody spectrum of the CMBR, light-element nucleosynthesis rate ratios, it accounts for measurements of luminosity-redshift curves, it predicts hotter temperatures in the past which have been observed, and so on. Inflation makes specific predictions about the statistical power distribution of the CMBR spectrum which have been confirmed. Dark matter has a wide range of evidence in its favor from galactic rotation to clusters to large-scale structure formation to cosmology. Furthermore, it is now known that candidate particles for the inflaton and dark matter appear naturally in almost every extension to the Standard Model that people have thought up — and not because they were added in explicitly to serve as inflatons or dark matter — including some in the Standard Model itself; inflation and dark matter could be predicted on the basis of particle physics alone.

During my four years at Uni I was told the models for neutron stars, planetary creation etc were constantly under debate to match observations with newer technology. Fair enough, I'm the first to say we can't know everything about a system and that we need to rethink when new data is found, but my point is if so many of our models are under doubt then why are our climate models so trustworthy?

Well, for one, they don't depend on unknown physics like the behavior of quantum chromodynamics at high densities. They also are based on far more data than we have about stellar interiors.

That being said, our current climate models aren't terribly accurate, by most physics standards. But climatologists have found that they get decent results when they average the predictions of an ensemble of climate models. In short, it's not the case that we can't use models accurately. Their predictions vary (I showed you graphs of that), but model calibration studies give reason to believe that the true values fall somewher

That's what I meant by opposed. They couldn't believe that this was the way physics was shaping up. I mean look how close Scroedinger came to throwing in the towel. Yet Bohr showed him the beauty of his own arguement. I believe that research in the field would have sped up if Einstein hadn't so been so public in his denouncing it. I know his main objections were on philosophical grounds, but he did try to dispute it using physics arguments. Slowly Bohr managed to win and lets face it the EPR paper was an embarresment, then whoom as you said everyonewas on the qm band wagon. Thing is these things pop up in my mail box, and I read the headlines then delete them. I wish I had time togo back into the subject in the years I've been out, it's changed so much. I remember that the current BB model had to be revisited to account for new theories in QCD/QED. I tried to locate the article and found this one. It's interesting what he has to say, especially about the shift in ideas. I don't know much about the physics (nor, sadly the time to get into again) to say one way or the other. Maybe you've heard of it. If so what do you think? http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm/ As for the models (other post)... When you first mentioned the atmospheric physics of astronomy, that's what got me thinking. During my four years at Uni I was told the models for neutron stars, planetary creation etc were constantly under debate to match observations with newer technology. Fair enough, I'm the first to say we can't know everything about a system and that we need to rethink when new data is found, but my point is if so many of our models are under doubt then why are our climate models so trustworthy? I mean in that paper the started all of this (well for me), The authors show a graph that demonstrates (figure 11 page 4): "Global annual lower tropospheric temperatures as measured by satellite MSU between latitudes 83 N and 83 S (17, 18) plotted as deviations from the 1979 value." There is a significatn deviation from the predicted IPCC model. Now I know I know nothing about the IPCC model, or even how the authors have applied it (correclty etc). But is this data wrong, a lie or what? Note I would be saying this even if the model suggested everything was fine. All I want to know is why both sides are arguing about models when by everyone's own admission models can not be used accurately because we simply do not know what is going on (do we know all the factors etc..actually do we know do you reckon there is other factors at play which perhaps are not included in the IPCC model, some possible feedback effects, solar fluctuations, plant life, geothermal activity caused by the planets, I'm guessing because I don't know.. what do you think?) As for the pupils, don't worry I'm not going to be teaching them climate models or anything like that. I appreciate it takes a while to learn the whole subject. I know a lot of people are doing hard work in the field and I don't want to undermine this by glibly referencing it in a classroom. But I think they pupils should see this side, and not just accept what is thrown at them, by me or anyone. For example Cecilia Bitz's article about how an inteview she gave with the media led to misconceptions / misinterpretations being printed. She went on to explain what she was trying to get across. I think it's essential that pupils see that side and not just beliving what is printed (or at least what is printed is subject to the writers interprepatations / angle / motives etc). Maybe that is something realclimate.org should look into, trying to educate the youth through an impartial and balanced (like what I've seen so far) forum suited for their age. I wish I could ahold of this DVD (being out of the states...) I remeber I gave a medium ability group (as a fun lesson) a video (maybe you've seen it) about how the moon landings were faked. They watched it and by the end of it most of them had changed their mind and beleived that Appolo 11 didn't land. Then I as

The funny thing is - when you KNOW someone is trying to drop your airplanes out of the air - and this isn't being paranoid - that big hole in the ground in New York supports the claim, then taking precautions to try and identify problem passengers BEFORE the plane takes off seems only prudent doesn't it?

However: there are a vast number of different targets, all of them VASTLY more devastating if attacked than the shitbags on 9/11.

Example? Try the water pipes that basically provide H2O for LA. 4 giant pipes that roll right over the mountains by the Grapevine south of Bakersfield. All you would have to do is blow those up in two places, and LA and the surrounding basin would essentially cease to exist as a city. Thousands would die of thirst, especially if it was blown up in midAugust.

Another? The LNG tanks in Brooklyn. Several heavily armed people clear the way for several dumptrucks loaded with fertiliser bombs. The LNG Tanks would set each other off, going off with a blast about 1/4 the size of Hiroshima (IIRC). Casualities in the hundreds of thousands.

another: similar tanks in Elizabeth NJ. Fewer dead, but completely devastating in terms of economics and political theatre - definite fear mongering potential.

Another? Put a huge bomb on a train going under the Hudson. It would sever the NE corridor, kill hundreds, perhaps more if properly timed, and basically devastate the NE USA.

Another? Suicidal Armed personnel shoot and cut their way into the Microsoft campus in Redmond, followed by semis filled with fertiliser bombs. Boom. Thousands die. MS collapses and the world computer industry is thrown into complete disarray for years. Linux and OSX would take up the slack, but it would take a long time for that to happen...

Another? And Another? There are threats everywhere. To cover all possible forms of devastating attack would reduce this country to a state of paranoid infantile catatonia.

As for any claims by other posters about our "fascist" government. Go look up the term "fascist."

I have, many times. And I use it all the time to describe the deteriorating situation here in the States.

I suggest YOU read this:

Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism By Dr. Lawrence Britt

and you will see we are actually NOT a long way from it, in fact we're very much collapsing directly into it.

RS

how many deaths per year are caused by passive marijuanna smoking[?]: 0

[how many accidental gun deaths?]: tricky question with varying answers. 1,500 is a number I see alot, however, the NRA claims that number is even lower.

Judging by the responses to my post, the pot-gun comparison left a few readers scratching their heads. Please, allow me to clarify. I was not attempting to compare the safety of guns v. marjunna. Although marijunna may contribute to driving deaths, no one in the history of recorded medicine has died directly from using it. On the other hand, guns *directly* kill *some* amount of innocent people every year.

My point was that outlawing or banning guns is not a "silver bullet" solution. Those who are still strongly pro-gun will most likely continue to buy and use them (just like marijuanna users). We might make stonger laws, we might move towards decriminalization, but some portion of the population will remain unaffected.

My logic: If I use a gun unsafely, and begin pointing it at various people in and around my home, I put innocent people at risk. If I smoke pot, then go for a drive, I put innocent people at risk. Both are currently illegal, both continue to happen on a daily basis (not by me, but by reckless, rude and foolish people around me).

My conclusion: laws cannot solve the gun issue.

My opinion: marijunna and guns both involve a degree of risk, but used properly, will not result innocent deaths. Foolish people will hurt, kill and maim innocents using both, regardless of the law.

I lived in the Atlanta area for a little over a year. Not long after I moved there, I began talking guns with somebody at work, as I was looking for a range where I could fire my own handgun. Anyway, he directed me to an interesting fact: In the city of Kennesaw, GA it is mandatory for all households (with obvious exceptions) to maintain a loaded firearm. Link: http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm. I'm not sure how this law would apply to displaying a firearm in public in Kennesaw, but I get the feeling that it's probably no big deal there.

Anecdote number two: I graduated from high school in 1999 (think Columbine). I can remember several instances during deer season where kids would come to school straight from hunting before school with their four wheelers in the bed of their truck and their .30-06 in the gun rack. Administration generally looked the other way until Columbine. (Interestingly enough, there didn't seem to be much crackdown after the 1998 middle school shooting in Jonnesboro, AR which is only about 2.5 hours north of us, but there was a severe crack down the next school year after the Columbine shootings, which occured one year and one month later.)

Point number three: In my life, I can recall exactly one time that I was actually comforted by the fact that I own a firearm. I lived in the New Orleans area (Metairie) at the time Katrina hit. I re-entered the area not long after the storm to obtain more clothing, medecine, and other items I would need for my long term stay away from home. I saw a lot of police presence and Guard presence on the major roadways, but once I got back in to the neighborhoods, I saw very little in the way of police/military protection. When I made it in to my apartment, the first thing I did was check my weapon and make it ready. Knowing what everybody knows about the state of the city immediately after the hurricane, every trip I made out to my vehicle I made with my handgun in plain sight, on my hip in its holster. On one of the trips, I shut my trunk and turned around to see a young man dressed in long jean shorts and a tank top round a corner with some sort of thick club-like stick resting upon his right shoulder. I didn't recognize the guy as living in the complex and something about his mannerisms seemed to imply that he didn't rightly belong within the confines of our gated complex. In any respect, he was about 15 yards away. I looked at him. He looked at me. I saw him look at the gun on my hip and I saw him turn and walk away, though a gap in the fence that had been created by storm damage, further reinforcing my assumption that he didn't live in our complex.

Now, I've never really decided one way or the other on the issue of a firearm for home defense. I tend to think that in a sudden wakeful state where one's mind may not be running at full decision-making capacity, a firearm is not a good thing to be weilding. Mine usually stays on my closet shelf, magazine loaded but without a round chambered. That said, I was very glad on that day that I had my gun on my hip. Who knows what may have happened otherwise? Probably nothing. The guy was probably just as nervous as I was in that situation and he probably only stopped to look at me becuase he was surprised to see somebody else there as well. Either way, I'm glad that I never found out what might have happened. I just know that at that moment in time, I had never felt more comforted by the presense of a firearm.

Anyway, suffice it to say that I believe in the 2nd ammendment strongly and feel that without it, one cannot truly be free from a tyrannical government.

What's the cause-and-effect link in current US history between private ownership of light weapons and prevention of fascism?

First read this (Time) : http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1 004099-3,00.html
"Brookings Institution military analyst Michael O'Hanlon praises the approach, which relies heavily on special forces, unmanned drones and possibly a new *high-powered* microwave weapon"

Then, read this (NY Post) : http://archiv.infopeace.de/msg01572.html
"U.S. military officials said last night that a preliminary battle plan
outlined for President Bush last week calls for the most extensive use of
electronic and psychological warfare in history - including secret new
electromagnetic pulse weapons to disable Saddam's entire command and
control structure."

And finally, read this : http://www.rense.com/general40/secret.htm
"A nightmarish US super weapon reportedly was employed by American ground forces during chaotic street fighting in Baghdad. The secret tank-mounted weapon was witnessed in all its frightening power [...] Searching for a description, al-Ghazali said it appeared to be shooting concentrated lightning bolts rather than just ordinary flames."

Are U.S. using Iraq as a test bed for new electromagnetic *lethal* weapons ?

LOL! You really must be drinking a LOT of the republican kool-aid. The Republicans lost because they've not done anything about the Iraq war, and people are tired of it. They also lost because they've increased spending by a LOT. Combine that with all the scandals hitting the Republican party, and it's pretty obvious that they've dug their own grave. The Democrats are really the only ones you can't blame for this one.

Heh, the Dems do a lot of FUD. It wasn't that effective in the last election, but I saw claims ranging from how Bush was going to take us into Iran if the Republicans won again, or he would get rid of Social Security, Reinstitute the draft etc, etc. Never mind the nutty bloggers and the things they wrote.

You are right however, the Republicans, Bush specifically pissed off the base when it came to issues like Harriet Myers, Dubai ports, Illegal Immigration, Spending, etc. Second term incumbant presidents often lose the midterms anyway, because by then the US hasn't become the Democratic/Republican nirvana that the bases of the parties want so they usually find a reason to be pissed off. Also, since most presidents who are elected are somewhat centerist (by US standards), with 6 years in office they usually do at least one thing to tick off their supporters.

In some ways yes, in some ways no. There's not a lot of leadership in the Democratic party, more like a lot of common interests pooled together. The Republicans have a default leader of the President (though most Republicans have tried to distance themselves from him).

They actually did have some issues they ran on, but they didn't mention them much. Most candidates ran on a 'Bush is Bad' platform and won.

Funny, I didn't see any of those ads. It's almost as if you just made those ones up to try to exagerate a point. Of course they did run attack ads. The ones I saw were largely accurate,

It wasn't the attack ads as much as the third parties they got to make wild accusations. The Republicans are no way above this (If you elect the democrats the terrorists will win!).

like talking about a Republican candidate being against funding of stem-cell research. It also doesn't help that the jerk-off Senator in Virginia called some guy a "macacca" (a racial slur)

Considering the history of the term, I'm doubting he meant it like that, unless he just happened to know Macaca was a dismissive epithet used by francophone colonials in Central Africa's Belgian Congo for the native population. Or maybe he just meant to call the guy a monkey? I fail to see how calling someone a monkey is racist. What animals can you actually call someone nowadays without someone trying to make you out as a racist?

It's great that the Democrats blew it up to make the Republicans look like racists, and basically framed that whole election over the one incident rather than the issue at hand. I'm not delusional enough to think if the shoe was on the other foot the Republicans wouldn't do the same however.

and then said "welcome to America" even though the guy was born here, was accused of calling people niggers in College, at first denied his Jewish heritage (like he's ashamed of it), then had to admit to it.

And the guy who beat him, Jim Webb admitted to using the same word.

The funny thing is he almost won, which probbably says a lot about Virginia than anything else.

Maybe people voted on the issues rather than the character assassination? Or maybe it was that Jim Webb is more of a conservative than Allen? Have you ever listened to Jim Webb? He sounds like Pat Buchanan. At one point Allen's campaign manager actually said Webb was 'too conservative'. When a Republican is complaining about a Democrat being too conservative in Virginia, you know he's fucked.

So, I guess I can't

That is true but at least sodium chloride is a naturally occurring substance that humans have consumed for thousands of years which is a pretty good long term study to look back on.

Chlorinated sugar on the other hand is only about 30 years old and NO long term studies have been done (and in total only THIRTY SIX humans were ever tested and the longest study was FOUR DAYS) while many of the studies that have been done show that pretty bad things can happen such as: "Sucralose (Splenda) may result shrunken thymus glands, impaired immune system and enlargement of liver and kidneys" (New Scientist, Nov 23, 1991). Take a look at the following article about the dangers of splenda for some more info:
http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_danger s.htm

We don't know what long term problems could arise out of humans using sucralose and that is pretty scary and is the reason I won't use myself as one of the test subjects. If you want to assume that using man made chlorinated sugar is fine since using naturally occurring chlorinated salt is fine then go for it. I would prefer to see more long term testing done that shows more favorable results than all of the tests I have taken a look at so far.

I also don't understand why anyone would want to use a man made chemical when many natural sugar replacements are available. The reason the masses don't know about the safe, natural alternatives is because there is not nearly as much money in it as there is if a company comes up with their own man made alternative that they can patent. Did you know that stevia cannot legally call itself a sweetener here in the US because the artificial sweetener companies put pressure on the FDA to not allow it? Even though Japan has extensively studied the herb and proven it is a safe sugar alternative it cannot be called such because of that would threaten the profits that could be made using the man made sweeteners. The FDA would prefer to ban stevia if they could, read more about how stevia has been attacked here:
http://www.rense.com/general37/stev.htm

Let's take this one by one.

I hate Donald Rumsfield now because he is one of the major pushers of the agenda for the millitary-industrial complex, just as he has been since the Nixon years. He does not work for the American people or the American government, nor does he look after the interests of the millitary. He is interested in getting as many of our tax dollars to manufactures of defense products and services as possible.

I remember the Clinton years with some fondness because someone had a plan to improve America and it was working. If it weren't for the facist propaganda telling America that he was corrupt every single day of his 8 years, he could have done so much more. The most investigated president ever in history, millions of dollars spent, and the ONLY thing that anyone could come up with was he lied about cheating on his wife. That was an affair with a consentual adult (+21). I was not fond of how the republican members of congress chose to waste their time or my tax dollars.

Let's see, there was Panama, Grenada, Viet Nam, Korea, multiple central American Countries....where weren't we trying to control their government? And what happened to all those countries in danger of being affected by the domino effect. As for torture, wheather or not the US has been doing it, it has been scientifically proven that torture does not provide good intelligence. This is recent American History as taught in any high school or college, not programming.

I watch Fox news nearly every day, until they tell enough half truths and lies that my blood pressure hits ciritical levels. Then I surf through the remaining news channels. I like to know what kind of propaganda the fascists are putting out there. It's a good thing to try to understand how the enemies of the constitution think.

Rush Limbaugh, Lora Ingrahm, Bill O'Reilly, and all the other lying fascist pigs will eventually suffer the same fate as the traterous Americans that they are.

Let me help define fascism for you. It's not whatever Rush or Lora or Bill say. A compairson was done of 4 or more known fascist governments in the past (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, and other smaller countries). They all had these defining charistics, which incidentially, are exactly what the Bush administration is committing right now:
1. Excessive Nationalism - extreme use of national symbols like flags.
2. Distain for Human rights-ie torture, indefinite detention
3. Identification of Scape goats - today Muslims
4. Supremacy of Millitary-spread of millitary activity
5. Rampant sexism and anti-gay rehtoric
6. Controlled Mass Media - Fox news
7. Obsession of National Security - pick any 5 minutes of any Bush speech
8. Religion in Government - done in Bush's first term
9. Protection of Corporate Power - immenent domain giving family property to Wal Mart and other corporations
10. supression of labor unions - you win. I can't think of a quick example for this one.
11. Distain for intellectuals and arts- No child left behind, shrinking government dollars for education
12. Obsession with crime and punishment-more executions in Texas than anywhere else in US while bush was in charge
13. Cronyism and Corruption-Harriet Meiers, Abrahmhoff, and all those who go with it.
14. Fraudulent Elections-diebold, Broward county Florida was actually requiring 3 pieces of photo id's from african americans in the 2000 elections. And yet they still couldn't fix it right.
(see source http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm)
Even if you can rebutt 3 or 4 of these, its still fascism.

To answer the original post, I will not leave. I took an oath when I joined the army to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I will stay here and do what I can to make sure that these criminals and trators are held accountable for their actions.

If you dismiss everything I said just out of hand, you are programmed. Just tell yourself black is white, war is peace, and go back to watching Fox news.

Obesity: http://www.msgtruth.org/obesity.htm

Both: http://www.rense.com/general52/msg.htm

Here is one article. And another article from a right wing perspective, and yet another article from the left side of the aisle. Then there's this and this and this, too.

Any more objections?

Oh and about their prisoner harvesting?
http://www.american.edu/TED/prisonorgans.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=1125056
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/harvestingorgansinc hina30mar06.shtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,1756808,0 0.html
http://www.rense.com/general10/org.htm

Thank you very much and have a nice day.

While one cannot be certain what exactly will happen, history has shown us that people usually react fairly strongly to anything that gets in the way of their freedom. And Americans have certainly proven this point.

When exactly in the last years?

There is a difference between rumours of elections being rigged versus actual evidence.

I'd say the evidence is there just nobody seems interested in picking it up. Might be because some KGB^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Federal institutions are actively persecuting people who have differing opinions?

Remember: Elections are not a sign of democracy. Hitler was democratically elected (besides, he won most of his wars and took personal responsibility after obviously loosing the last one). They are necessary, but they are not enough.

This pro-global warming theory is from the same James Hansen of NASA who used to agree with the warming skeptics, and before that he completely disagreed with the skeptics. So, who knows when he'll change sides next? This guy is great. From a previous Cato Institute article:

"NASA's James Hansen now predicts precisely the same, small amount of warming in the next 50 years that the much-derided 'climate skeptics' predicted all along. According to both the skeptics and Mr. Hansen, the planet is destined for a mere 0.7 degree Centigrade (1.25 degree Fahrenheit) warming between now and 2050."

Full article: NASA Extinguishes Global-Warming Fire

Although my personal opinion after much research is that both normal thermite to cut/weaken supports (using the patented device in the linked paper) and nano-thermite as an explosive to bring down the weakened building was used, there is no reason to assume that no other explosive was present, although given no-one has admitted picking up residue from explosives apart from nano-thermite, this would seem to be unlikely.

There was some speculation that thermo-baric (fuel air) bombs were used, since they seem to be one of the few non-nuclear devices capable of being both compact/portable and creating the huge overpressures needed to pulverise an entire building to dust floor by floor. I would be interested to hear just exactly what fuel is used in thermobarics and what explosive charge to start the shockwave, and what residue would be expected from them? (though I imagine it's probably classified :( )

oh and for those 9/11 newbies, YES there was opportunity to pre-plant all these devices, the towers underwent a 36 hour powerdown over the weekend before 911, with security cameras and locks not working, and "engineers" going in and out. Also the security for the WTC, the dulles airport (where one of the flights took off from) and one of the airlines involved was stratasec/securacom, run by Bush's brother! Not hard to bypass security when you ARE security. I would imagine that they had preplanted what they could in hidden spots weeks prior to 9/11, awaiting a favorable weather report (see here for why) then it seems on the 6/11 they got that report, so suddenly the booker primary school visit was finalised, among other things, and they set up the powerdown to plant all the rest of the esplosives and cutters necessary.

oh and by the way, there were 47 very large steel box columns in the core, and over 250 steel columns round the edge, all starting extremely thick in the basement and tapering towards the top, and as you say, they where over an inch thick. Actually near the base they where over 4 inches thick! This tells you just how stupid it is when people suggest that the jet fuel made much difference at all to them. Each floor contained over 1000 tonnes of steel and concrete, the jets dumped a maximum of perhaps 5 tonnes of kerosene (jet fuel) on each floor (probably less than this), while the rest burned up outside in a giant fireball (which seemingly exceeded the size the amount of fuel present should have created, though I've only seen this theory one place so far and havent verified the calculations yet). When was the last time that 1Kg of kerosene contained enough energy to noticeably weaken/heat 200 kg of steel and concrete? even more so since that steel was connected in an unbroken column to another 100 floors of it, like a giant heat sink (although admittedly the heat would not have had time to travel all that far in only one hour with the pissy little heat gradient present ...

again, for newbies to the scene, NIST could not find steel from the crash/fire area exposed to temperatures higher than 300C, and most was exposed to a fair bit less than this. (ignoring for the moment, as they did, the "partially evaporated" steel beams). As to people claiming the "jet fuel cant melt steel" argument is a strawman since it doesnt need to melt to collapse, it would be, except MANY WITNESSES REPORTED LITTERALLY DRIPPING MOLTEN STEEL BEAMS in the rubble, and there are pictures and video available showing yellow to yellow-white hot molten metal, far hotter than should have been present (again see the attached paper for pictures, or watch any good 9/11 CT film, they will probably show one of the clips)

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.ht ml http://www.rense.com/general66/ressp.htm look up "terrorstorm" on google video (perhaps you should watch "painful deceptions" and "martial law 911" first

It could be argued that airlines are facing a large lawsuit for allowing dangerous water bottles on planes for years after 9/11. All this time we were in grave danger from someone's Dysani.

Here's a link to the earlier incident, but it's from a bad source. I remember seeing it on real news sites though.

Do the so-called "archival quality" CD- and DVD-R disks actually last longer than the regular ones? If so, those should certainly be used./

Hmmm... I think the best you can say is 'Archival grade' media less crappy the the normal stuff. All we have are the CD companys claims which cannot be validated till much much too late. On top of that whats the use of a CD that will last 100 years I think there is an excellent chance that there in 100 years will be _nothing_ to read them with and a non zero chance that by then 'noone uses .jpg anymore'.

I did a little googling and thought this was mildly interesting ... Anyway bottom line is don't trust any single media. Digital data will survive by being mobile I hope/expect my photos/videos to survive as a forgotten directory on my great great grandsons Yoctobyte holocrystal array. My responsibility to him is to make sure the photos are annotated so when my great great great grandchild is doing a school history project she can put names, places and storys for the faces from another era.

...and if you are one of my decendents and are researching me Hello <WAVES> you may find it useful to know my USENET sig was always "NPC rights activist | Nameless Abominations are people too"

An adamant disbeliever in holograms! I salute to your obstinancy. It seems that I can't convince you; here are a few websites you might be interested in. http://www.rense.com/general69/holoff.htm That links to a site by Michael Talbot himself. He was the author of the book The Holographic Universe. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/optmod/ holog.html All the rudimentary information you want for understanding holograms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hologram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle Hologram and holographic principle by Wikipedia. I also recommend that you read Michael Talbot's book The Holographic Universe. It's kind of old (1991) but the information isn't too bad. Also, check out (if you can) Scientific American November 2005 article "The Illusion of Gravity" and August 2003 article "Information in the Holographic Universe". Enjoy!

Actually, in my neighborhood, they sent around an officer to advise people on how to save money on their insurance, pointing out stuff like window security, deadbolt strength, just general stuff. Things you wouldn't necessarily think of.

Hm... they sent a cop to look around eh?

How "nice" of them...

http://bbsnews.net/bw2003-04-05.html http://www.rense.com/general20/innocentmanshot.htm http://www2.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/200505/tows_p ast_20050526.jhtml http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2735735.stm http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=local&id =4212279 http://www.local6.com/news/4174721/detail.html

Last night decided to get a little bonged out and surf teh interweb. Had a look at rense.com for a bit of high weirdness and came across the amazingly named "Morgellon's disease". A disease so weird doctors wouldn't look at it? On Rense? It's got to be nonsense. (Either that or the chemtrails are involved.)

http://www.rense.com/general71/mmor.htm

And now it's on /.?

Let's face it, /., just like a Morgellon's victim, is not getting any better is it?

(Can't we go back to PPC v x86 arguments somehow?)