If I were a Terrorist!

[Playerdown]

[Deutscher75]

Everything in that video is why I say Bush should have never been re-elected AND why he should be impeached and should have been impeached. If I could inspire an uprising to expel our tyrannous government like our Constitution allows us too, you bet your sweet ass I would and SO much would be different. God I hate getting on the subject of politics, there's so much I would do different.

[MaCoo]

Deutscher75 ]

God I hate getting on the subject of politics, there's so much I would do different.

 

Well then step up, or just keeping ranting and raving like everyone else. I hear there looking for a new President here in the good ole U.S.-of-A.

 

LOL

[Deutscher75]

MaCoo_ ]

Deutscher75 ]

God I hate getting on the subject of politics, there's so much I would do different.

 

Well then step up, or just keeping ranting and raving like everyone else. I hear there looking for a new President here in the good ole U.S.-of-A.

 

LOL

 

I'm not 35, then again if I start an uprising I can have it all changed lol

[RNG187]

i think he just described bush's administration.

[SHANE23]

i think he just described bush's administration.

 

Not that I am defending Bush because I am not happy with him either BUT a lot started in the Clinton administration. Especially selling information to China and allowing US designed patented products to be stolen by Chinese manufacturers, built by Chinese companies and sold in the US. Outsourcing has been around a lot longer then these past 8 years. The tidal wave of outsourcing hit in the early 90's. Look at Motorola, Gateway, Andrew Corp, pretty much every technology company and pretty much 90% of the Customer Service phone support from companies.

[RNG187]

oh i'm not talking about the outsource, i'm talking about the value of the dollar, real-estate, and the price of education...

[Guest DevilRabbit]

SHANE23 ]

i think he just described bush's administration.

 

Not that I am defending Bush because I am not happy with him either BUT a lot started in the Clinton administration. Especially selling information to China and allowing US designed patented products to be stolen by Chinese manufacturers, built by Chinese companies and sold in the US. Outsourcing has been around a lot longer then these past 8 years. The tidal wave of outsourcing hit in the early 90's. Look at Motorola, Gateway, Andrew Corp, pretty much every technology company and pretty much 90% of the Customer Service phone support from companies.

 

I agree.. there was 8 years with another administration that started a lot of the stuff everyone blames bush for. Clinton could have done a lot more to head off the attacks on 9/11, since he was in office for a better part of the time that the intel was gathered. Bush just got into office, it might have been the same if Gore was elected.. Gore would have kept doing nothing just like him and clinton did the 8 years before.

 

I'm not saying that Bush has done everything right, there is a lot that he could have done different. The one thing I am thankfull for is that there havent been anymore attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.. So something must be going right.

 

It doesnt matter who gets elected this time around... because the right person for the job isnt some special interest millionare.

 

"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." (Douglas Adams 1952-2001)

[Guest DevilRabbit]

Also the forclosures are not the fault of the government.. its the idiots who dont pay their monthly payments on their home loans... if you cant afford $1200~$2000 or more in monthly payments... dont get the damn house, and look for something that will have lower payments.

[Playerdown]

Just wondering how old you guys are? When Reagan and George Sr. were in office, the economy was horrible. Clinton focused on our country not everyone else's. The economy was in the best shape i've ever seen it. Took this from the White House website.

 

"During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term. He could point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country's history, dropping crime rates in many places, and reduced welfare rolls. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus. As part of a plan to celebrate the millennium in 2000, Clinton called for a great national initiative to end racial discrimination. "

 

 

[Guest DevilRabbit]

27...

 

its amazing what a president can do when he saves money by undercutting our military. Clinton downsized our military and weakend our defence.. and didnt do anything to help out our foreign relations. He and his administration also made it near impossible the CIA to recruit new qualified agents. Even now the Demicrats are trying to undercut our military by voting down funding for the war, and voting down research and development of newer safer vehicles that will help keep our troops safe from IED's. Taking money away from our troops isnt going to make the war end.

[Deutscher75]

DevilRabbit ]

27...

 

its amazing what a president can do when he saves money by undercutting our military. Clinton downsized our military and weakend our defence.. and didnt do anything to help out our foreign relations. He and his administration also made it near impossible the CIA to recruit new qualified agents. Even now the Demicrats are trying to undercut our military by voting down funding for the war, and voting down research and development of newer safer vehicles that will help keep our troops safe from IED's. Taking money away from our troops isnt going to make the war end.

 

that's the whole thing, we DON'T need to be fighting this war. We only need to protect out borders, which is a lot easier to do than hunting down fucking Terrorists in mountains and pouring billions of dollars into countries we destroy in the process. Terrorists hate the U.S. because we stick our noses in business it doesn't belong. The cut backs on military spending were necessary because if you paid attention, we were in a time of mostly peace. So there was no need to continuing such high military spending and buildup. I don't agree with cutting funding for the CIA, they alone are our lifeline in this world for finding out what the danger is and whether we actually need to get involved or not which 90% of the time we don't.

 

And the high foreclosure rate is not the result of people not making payments, it's the high unemployment rate, cutbacks, outsourcing, and no tariffs or trade agreements that protect American industry and interests, which causes job loses and layoffs that disallow people from making the money to pay their mortgages. Know a little more about the subject next time you decide to comment.

[Guest DevilRabbit]

If the democrats take power this November they will probably continue the same policies as Bush. We know this because Clinton did basically the same thing when he was in office. To think otherwise is to ignore history and the democrat's records. The "Anybody but Bush" (ABB) movement is founded on a basically irrational hatred of Bush that completely ignores the record of the democrats the last time they were in power. The ABB movement practices a double standard: when republicans do something it’s wrong but when democrats do the same thing it’s okay (or didn’t happen at all). In party politics it is always the other party’s fault, never the system’s fault. If a democrat were in office and implemented the same policies Bush has most of the ABBers would support him. We know this because Clinton implemented many of the same policies ABBers criticize Bush for yet they didn’t develop the same kind of hatred towards Clinton they have towards Bush. Most outright supported Clinton and the minority who didn’t support him did not develop the kind of irrational hatred towards Clinton they have towards Bush.

 

There are major continuities between Clinton’s policies and Bush’s policies, even if their rhetoric is different. These continuities also illustrate the flaw in thinking that putting a democrat back in office will be a big change for the better. The last time a democrat was in office he did pretty much the same thing the current occupant is doing, so given that the current nominee doesn't disavow Clinton there’s no reason to think the next democrat in the White House will be much different.

 

Bush’s environmental record isn’t very good, but neither was Clinton’s. During the 1992 election campaign Clinton and Gore promised to shut down the East Liverpool incinerator, which spews toxic chemicals into the air a quarter of a mile away from an elementary school, but once elected they refused to do so. The Clinton administration’s enforcement of the endangered species act was lax and he weakened it through several means, including the “no surprises†and “safe harbors†policies. Funding of mass transit continued to decline under his administration.

 

Clinton ended the ban on production and importation of PCBs, stopped the phase out of Methyl Bromide (a toxic pesticide and ozone layer depleter), supported the weakening of the safe drinking water act (by allowing increased levels of arsenic and lead in drinking water), signed the Salvage Rider law (which cut down thousands of acres of healthy forests), signed the Panama declaration (which weakened protection for marine mammals including dolphins and whales), supported international distribution of Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone, supported mountain top removal strip mining, continued subsidizing the sugar industry in Florida (which poisons the Everglades & diverts water away from wildlife that needs it), and lowered grazing fees on public land. Clinton also supported the World Trade Organization (WTO), which weakened or removed environmental protections, including the weakening of the clean air act and the removal of part of the Endangered Species act's protection of sea turtles. In 1996 former Sierra Club President David Brower wrote, "President Clinton has done more to harm the environment and to weaken environmental regulations in three years than presidents Bush and Reagan did in 12 years."

 

Many in the ABB movement attack Bush for reducing civil liberties through things like the PATRIOT act. Yet, almost all democrats in congress vote for the patriot act and Bill Clinton supported many measures that reduced civil liberties and expanded the police state. He signed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the forerunner to the PATRIOT act. It allowed the INS to deport immigrants based on secret evidence, made it a crime to support the lawful activities of any group the state department labeled a “terrorist organization,†and eliminated federal constitutional review of state death penalty cases (making the execution of innocent people more likely). Much of the PATRIOT act consists of things that Clinton was unable to pass during his term.

 

Clinton encouraged the militarization of the police, including a program to put 100,000 more cops on the street. This lead to political repression, seen at Seattle, and more recent actions as well as a general increase in police brutality, such as the police torture of Abner Louima and the 1999 murder of Amadou Diallo (who was shot 41 times by police claiming they thought his wallet was a gun). Clinton supported Internet censorship, signing the Communications Decency Act - which the Supreme Court fortunately struck down on first amendment grounds. When he ran for election in 1992 Clinton pledged to free political prisoner Leonard Peltier, but he was still in prison when Clinton left office. The rate of capital punishment increased under Clinton, as did the rate of incarceration. Clinton’s expansion of the prison system, due mainly to the “war on drugs,†caused the United States to imprison more people than any other country in the world, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of population. All of this was done at a time when crime rates were decreasing.

 

Democrats attack Bush over the poor state of the economy, but the economy actually started going downhill at the very end of Clinton's administration, in late 2000. The stock bubble of the 1990s caused the recession and it occurred while Clinton was in office. Clinton's boom was founded on corporate fraud from the likes of Enron and WorldCom. The corporate crime wave occurred mainly while Clinton was in office, whose administration was just as complicit as Bush. It was just exposed while Bush was in office. The reason most Democratic leaders haven't attacked Bush over this is because they're just as much in bed with these criminals as the Republicans. Most of the benefits from Clinton's boom went to the wealthier sections of society. Economic inequality increased under Clinton, just as it has under Bush. None of this excuses the Bush's handling of the economy, his administration's response to the recession it inherited from Clinton has been awful, but there are strong continuities with the Clinton administration.

 

Liberals often criticize Bush over his tax cuts for the rich and generally waging a class war in favor of the rich, but Clinton did the same thing. Clinton reduced the capital gains tax rate in 1997. This disproportionately benefits the rich, since a large percentage of their income comes from capital gains but most Americans make little or nothing from capital gains. Corporate welfare (subsidies and tax loopholes for the rich & big business) greatly increased under Clinton's administration, in his second term alone corporate welfare rose by over 30%. Clinton also attacked the poor by, among other things, abolishing the Aid to Families with Dependant Children program ("welfare reform"). The increase in poverty under Bush is, in part, due to this class war against the poor by Clinton, which undermined the social safety net. After winning election in 1992 Clinton made Lawrence Summers an official in his administration and later appointed Summers his last Treasury Secretary in 1999. Before Clinton was elected, in 1991, Summers, then chief economist for the World Bank, issued a memo reading:

 

"Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Less Developed Countries]? ... I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that. ... I've always though that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted ... The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons, social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization."

 

Some democrats attack Bush over outsourcing, but Clinton supported NAFTA, GATT, the WTO and "free trade" generally, which caused outsourcing to go from a trickle to the current flood. Under Clinton the budget for the federally funded Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) increased by over 30%. OPIC gives loans and guarantees to companies intended to encourage investment in "developing" countries, which tends to encourage outsourcing. For example, Kimberly Clark transferred 600 jobs to other countries as a result of this funding and Levi Strauss transferred 100 jobs overseas for the same reason. In other words, the government gives loans to companies, through OPIC, to ship American jobs overseas and Clinton increased OPIC's budget from under $100 million to $3 billion. Under Clinton 14% of OPIC's loans went to Citibank. Robert Ruben, one of Clinton's Treasury Secretaries, became director of Citibank after leaving office. Under Bush OPIC's budget decreased to $800 million. The problem with outsourcing is not that it "steals American jobs," as nationalists argue, but that it replaces relatively high paying jobs with lower paying jobs, causing the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. Clinton's policies were even more pro-outsourcing than Bush's.

 

Bush's policies on the media tend to favor the concentration of the media into a few large corporations. So did Clinton's policies. He signed the 1996 Telecommunications Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which encouraged media monopolization at least as much as Bush.

 

Bush has a poor record on gay rights, but Clinton's record (if not his rhetoric) wasn't much better, as shown by his signing of the Defense of Marriage Act and his "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

 

On abortion, Clinton signed an order banning any American funds to pay for abortions overseas. Bush only expanded this to include cutting off funds to any group that offers abortion as an alternative. Under Clinton the number of abortion providers dropped to the lowest in 30 years. A large number of counties don’t have abortion providers. This effectively denies many women the choice to have an abortion since if there is no abortion provider around then you obviously can’t choose to have an abortion.

 

Clinton’s foreign policy could best be described as “cruise missile imperialism.†ABBers attack Bush for his alleged unilateral “go it alone†foreign policy and for invading Iraq on false pretenses. Both were largely a continuation of Clinton’s policies.

 

Clinton increased funding for the military. He also bombed more countries than any other peacetime president, including Yugoslavia, Sudan, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan. In 1998 he bombed alleged terrorist training camps in Afghanistan (which were built by the CIA for Islamic terrorists in the 1980s) supposedly being used by Osama Bin Laden and a factory in Sudan Clinton alleged was producing chemical weapons for Bin Laden. No proof that this factory was producing chemical weapons was ever provided and it was later proven that the plant was actually a medicine factory. This probably resulted in thousands of deaths (there was no investigation so we can’t know the exact number) because the source of medicine for many Sudanese was cut off.

 

When Bush invaded Iraq, he went to the UN and attempt to get international support and UN approval to invade Iraq. He failed to get that support and invaded anyway but he at least tried to get UN approval. When Clinton attacked Yugoslavia in 1999 he didn’t even try to get UN approval, he just bypassed it completely in favor of a unilateral assault. Nineteen nations, all of NATO, technically signed up to the war but the US (with UK assistance) took the lead role and did most of the fighting, just like Bush’s “coalition†in Iraq. Most of the world was against the war, there were even small riots in front of US embassies. Unlike the Iraq war, the US did have the support of West European governments, but the rest of the world was against it (some were extremely upset). One of the administration’s slogans was “multilateral when we can, unilateral when we must,†which is virtually the same as Bush’s policy.

 

In Yugoslavia the government was fighting a war with the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), which advocated independence for the Kosovo province of Yugoslavia. The official pretext for Clinton’s bombing of Yugoslavia was that it refused to sign up to the Rambouillet peace accords and was committing “ethnic cleansing†(genocide) in Kosovo as part of the war. These pretexts were disproved, just as the pretexts for the Iraq war were disproved. Clinton intentionally sabotaged the peace negotiations between the KLA and Yugoslavia, which the US mediated, by inserting the infamous “Appendix B†into the Rambouillet accords, requiring Yugoslavia to allow NATO “peacekeeper†troops to occupy the entire country (not just Kosovo). Obviously, Yugoslavia is not going to agree to just let the US take the whole country over.

 

During the war all sorts of allegations were thrown around about hundreds of thousands of Kosovars being massacred, rape camps being set up, mass graves littering the province and so on. NATO’s own investigations, after the war was over, failed to find any proof of these accusations. There were atrocities, as in almost every war, but nothing even remotely approaching genocide. NATO’s bombings killed more people than the so-called “ethnic cleansing†which allegedly motivated it. Just as there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, there was no ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Furthermore, the CIA later admitted that it began supporting the KLA even before the bombing started. In other words, Clinton intentionally instigated the whole conflict, using the KLA as a proxy army to attack Yugoslavia and create a situation where he would have an excuse to bomb the country.

 

Clinton’s policy towards Iraq set the stage for the invasion of Iraq. In 1998 Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, which made regime change in Iraq official US policy. Clinton waged a terrorist car bombing campaign against Iraq, whose targets included school buses, and attempted to overthrow the Iraqi government via coup. Madeline Albright, who later became Clinton’s secretary of state, said in a May 1996 interview on “60 Minutes†that she thought the death of 500,000 Iraqi children due to sanctions on Iraq was “worth the price.â€

 

Clinton repeatedly bombed Iraq throughout his term. In 1998 Iraq stopped cooperating with weapons inspectors, claiming they were being used by the US as spies. Clinton had the inspectors withdrawn and launched Operation Desert Fox, a major bombing campaign against Iraq much larger than his previous bombings of Iraq. Afterwards the US continued bombing Iraq on an almost daily basis until the invasion. A later UN investigation found that Iraq’s allegations were true; the US was using the inspectors to spy on Iraq. Bush merely escalated Clinton’s aggression against Iraq from a low intensity war to a full-fledged invasion, an escalation that probably would not have been possible had Clinton not been laying siege to Iraq for his entire term. Clinton’s bombings of Iraq were completely unilateral, without UN approval and carried out solely by the US and UK.

 

Clinton’s pretexts for all this were the same pretexts used by Bush to invade Iraq, but with more emphasis on weapons of mass destruction and less emphasis on Al-Qaeda. On February 4th, 1998 Clinton said, "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." On February 17th, 1998 he said, "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." In his defense of Operation Desert Fox on December 16th, 1998 Clinton argued that, “Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons†and that, “The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government.†On February 18th, 1998 Secretary of State Madeline Albright said, “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.†Clinton’s National Security Adviser Sandy Berger warned, “he [saddam Hussein] will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.â€

 

The state department kept Iraq on its list of states that it claims “sponsor terrorism†every year Clinton was in office. Part of a 1998 indictment of Osama Bin Laden by Clinton’s justice department read, "Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq." The use of the fact that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a dictatorship in order to demonize Iraq and justify aggression towards it has been a staple part of US war propaganda since the Gulf War and continued to be so under Clinton. All the lies used by Bush to justify conquering Iraq were inherited from Clinton.

 

Senator Hillary Clinton voted for the invasion of Iraq and her husband agrees with her stance. Bill Clinton supports the war; he only differs with Bush in that he thinks it would have been better to wait a little longer before invading. In a June 2004 interview he told Time magazine, “I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq … I don't believe he went in there for oil. We didn't go in there for imperialist or financial reasons†and that “You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these [weapons of mass destruction] stocks. I never really thought he'd [use them]. What I was far more worried about was that he'd sell this stuff or give it away. … So that's why I thought Bush did the right thing to go back. When you're the President, and your country has just been through what we had, you want everything to be accounted for.†He also claimed after the weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998:

 

“there were substantial quantities of botulinum and aflatoxin, as I recall, some bioagents, I believe there were those, and VX and ricin, chemical agents, unaccounted for. Keep in mind, that's all we ever had to work on. We also thought there were a few missiles, some warheads, and maybe a very limited amount of nuclear laboratory capacity.

 

After 9/11, let's be fair here, if you had been President, you'd think, well, this fellow bin Laden just turned these three airplanes full of fuel into weapons of mass destruction, right? Arguably they were super-powerful chemical weapons. Think about it that way. So, you're sitting there as President, you're reeling in the aftermath of this, so, yeah, you want to go get bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that.

 

That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for.â€

 

During the 2000 election Bush, unlike Gore, was against “nation building†(taking other countries over, like in Iraq and Afghanistan) but that was obviously thrown out the window. Gore called for increasing military spending by $10 billion over the next ten years, while Bush only wanted to raise it by $5 billion over the next ten years. According to Clinton foreign policy adviser Strobe Talbott, "the Bush administration was right to identify Iraq as a major problem. A President Gore…would have ratcheted up the pressure, and sooner or later resorted to force." Subjected to the same political pressures as Bush and surrounded by advisers like Talbott, Gore would have probably reacted to events in a manner similar to Bush. Those who argue that Gore would have been less aggressive than Bush and would not have invaded Iraq are arguing that the more aggressive & militaristic candidate would actually have been less aggressive & militaristic, which is fairly absurd.

 

The invasion of Iraq was the outcome of geopolitics and a changed domestic situation, not which man occupied the White House. After the gulf war the US laid siege to Iraq with sanctions and bombings. As this siege progressively degraded Iraq’s military an invasion became more likely, because defeating Iraq’s military in a war became easier & cheaper the more the siege degraded it. At the same time, attempts to overthrow the government and install a pro-US one through terrorism, coups, etc. continually failed. The failure of these covert attempts to topple the government and the decreasing costs & risks of an invasion created pressure to invade Iraq, which, given enough time, would eventually lead to an invasion. This process was accelerated by 9-11 because it decreased domestic opposition to wars in general and enabled the government to decrease opposition to the invasion by scaring the public with fantasies about how Iraq was working with Al-Qaeda to launch terrorist attacks on the US. The same pretext of “fighting terrorism†could be used to keep US bases in the region for as long as the government wanted. 9-11 accelerated many of these trends, but they were still basically a continuation of Clinton’s policies.

 

The Bush-haters position is not founded on the policies Bush has implemented, which they complain about. If it were they would be Clinton haters, too. Most ABBers’ position is based primarily on a blind irrational hatred of the other party and, partly, also a reaction to the different media images of Clinton & Bush. When Clinton ran for office he claimed to advocate a mildly liberal reformist platform, once in office he abandoned it and went with a conservative program. Today, most leaders of the Democratic Party don’t even pretend to support that mildly populist reformism Clinton espoused in 1992. To think that the next democratic administration will be any different is asinine. Clinton’s administration gives us an example of what we can expect if the democrats take power this November: more of the same.

[RNG187]

D75, THANK YOU. i couldnt respond quick enough.

i dont think we should get into GOPs and democrats, that and religion are nonos on the forums..

[Guest M16Assassin]

D75, THANK YOU. i couldnt respond quick enough.

i dont think we should get into GOPs and democrats, that and religion are nonos on the forums..

 

I gotta go with the german on this one as well. Rabbit next time just summarize what you read instead of posting the whole thing. ;D

[Deutscher75]

Fuck Bush and his father, both are money hungry assholes that hold special interest corporations in higher regard than the American People. And Fuck the Clinton's as well! One would rather get a blow job instead of doing his duty even though he was one of the greatest President's this nation has seen since FDR and had altogether. And his counterpart, (you know...the one that looks like a horse) well her policies suck ass as well. She shows no consideration for Trade barriers and re-designing tariffs and trade agreements already in place such as NAFTA (which in my opinion needs to go right out the freaking door). She has no real plan for education and her outlook on Social Security is similar to Bush Sr. (again another fuck up that shouldn't have been elected). Now yes the Clintons have/will continue Bush policies, that's why after 20 years of Bush/Clinton we need a change. Obama's the man...(though I wish it was Ron Paul) cause not only would the country be on its way to being fixed on his platform in 4 years...we could all get high while doing so!

 

But in all seriousness I didn't read your excessive Goat post...(at least he writes his opinions out and doesn't post those of others) and I don't plan to read it, (I did skim over a few paragraphs and got the jist of it, just so you're not completely offended).

 

Bottom line, this is Politics, it's something that doesn't ever bode well on these forums, it needs to just be dropped. End of story.

 

I'm gonna go ahead and ask the admins to lock this thread so it doesn't go farther. Thank you!

[Chili327]

weee, i can cut & paste too. ;D

 

 

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

 

"Centennial Bulb" still burning after 107 years

 

 

Buzz up!on Yahoo!Hanging about 18 feet high in the engine bay of a Livermore, California firehouse, a humble, low-watt light bulb has been burning almost continuously since 1901. Take that, halogen!

 

The Los Angeles Times (via Boing Boing) recently ran a story on the remarkably resilient Centennial Bulb—a four-watt, curlicue carbon-filament lightbulb that, give or take a few brief interludes, has been burning for 24 hours a day, seven days a week for more than a century.

 

The bulb has become something of a lucky charm for Livermore firefighters, who (according to the LA Times story) won't even dust off the bulb for fear of damaging it.

 

Indeed, when the department moved to a new fire station in 1976, firefighters decided to cut the power cord rather than unscrew the fragile bulb from its socket. A motorcade of fire trucks then accompanied the Centennial Bulb (which, according to Wikipedia, was only off for about 10 minutes during the short journey) to its new home, where it's been burning continuously ever since.

 

What's the secret to the Centennial Bulb's longevity? As the LA Times story notes, there are many theories. One former firefighter thinks it's because the bulb, made by the long-defunct Shelby Electric Co., shines in a cool-burning vacuum thanks to a perfect seal. Others chalk it up to the fact that the bulb has almost never been turned off.

 

In any case, the Centennial Bulb has been drawing curiosity-seekers and news stories (including, of course, this one) since 1972, and the bulb even has its own Web site—which, unfortunately, appears to be down for now (probably due to a burst of traffic).

 

Check out the LA Times Web site for the full story, including many more details on the bulb's storied history.

 

So, any theories on why the Centennial Bulb has been burning for so long?

 

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

 

German saved after buried in China's earthquake

 

 

 

BEICHUAN, China - A German tourist and a 52-year-old man were rescued Saturday — nearly five days after being buried by a powerful earthquake that ravaged China's Sichuan province, state media reported.

 

 

The news comes as authorities prepare for the daunting task of housing and feeding millions left homeless by the 7.9 magnitude earthquake Monday. Officials have said the death toll could reach 50,000.

 

The tourist was dug out of rubble after being buried for 114 hours in Wenchuan, the quake's epicenter, the official Xinhua News Agency said. The man was rescued after being buried for 117 hours under a collapsed building in Beichuan, Xinhua said. The reports did not give more details.

 

The two survivors were the latest of several people rescued far past what experts call the critical three-day "window" for finding survivors.

 

China Central Television reported Saturday rescuers extricated a 10-year-old girl who was trapped under her collapsed elementary school for 100 hours.

 

With the help of a crane, dozens of workers removed the fourth-grader from the rubble of Yingxiu Central Elementary School in Wenchuan on Friday evening after working all day. A dozen students had been rescued from the school, CCTV said.

 

The girl's condition was not known. CCTV said medical teams were treating the girl, who looked like a dusty rag doll when she was pulled out of the wreckage, missing a shoe and with a white cloth tied over her face to protect her from the blinding light after being in the dark for so long.

 

Rescue teams recovered 163 people alive on Friday, CCTV said Saturday.

 

President Hu Jintao, who arrived in Sichuan on Friday, was shown on television comforting survivors and encouraging soldiers carrying out rescue work.

 

The vast majority of survivors are rescued in the first 24 hours after a disaster, with the chances of survival dropping each day, said Dr. Irving Jacoby of the University of California. A person trapped but uninjured could survive for a week or even 10 days, and in extreme circumstances two weeks or more.

 

"They could live for a week without food but water is needed" to prevent dehydration, said Jacoby, who heads a San Diego-based medical assistance team that responded to a 1989 earthquake in California, Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and other disasters.

 

Continuing aftershocks make digging through unstable buildings dangerous. An aftershock rattled parts of central Sichuan province on Friday afternoon, Xinhua said. A number of vehicles were buried on a road leading to the epicenter, but the number of casualties was unknown.

 

Rescue teams from South Korea, Singapore and Russia got to work Saturday. They joined a Japanese specialist group, which was the first international rescue crew to arrive in the disaster area after China dropped its initial reluctance to accept foreign personnel.

 

A U.S. Air Force cargo plane loaded with tents, lanterns and 15,000 meals left Hawaii on Saturday, the first aid flight from the United States to help in Sichuan province. Another Air Force delivery was to fly in from Alaska.

 

The United Nations announced a grant of up to $7 million from its Central Emergency Response Fund, to be used by U.N. agencies and programs.

 

The government has not given a figure for the number of people left homeless, but Housing Minister Jiang Weixin said more than 4 million apartments and homes had been damaged or destroyed in Sichuan province. He said the water supply situation was "extremely serious" in Sichuan, and not flowing at all in 20 cities and counties.

 

Caring for the untold tens of thousands or more survivors across the earthquake zone was stretching government resources.

 

Just north of the provincial capital of Chengdu, the town square in Shifang was a tented encampment for 2,000 people, and coordinator Li Yuanshao reported a lack of tents. Many people walked in from surrounding towns with few belongings.

 

"We brought almost nothing, only the clothes we are wearing," said Zhang Xinyong, a high school junior who walked several hours to the camp.

 

In the town of Yingxiu, helicopters dropped leaflets urging people to "unite together" and giving tips like not to drink dirty water. Power and water remained cut off, and dazed and exhausted residents had hike 40 yards up a steep hill to a spring to fetch water.

 

On another hillside, at least 80 corpses in plastic body bags were placed into a trench dug by soldiers.

 

The confirmed death toll had risen to about 22,069 on Friday, but another 14,000 were thought to be buried in Sichuan.

 

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

 

Heat Is On! Record-Breaking Weekend Heat Expected

LOS ANGELES Get ready for some record-breaking heat!

 

The sweltering hot weather hit 101 degrees in Woodland Hills Friday and expected to continue throughout the weekend.

 

Saturday's highs are expected to be nice at the beaches, in the mid-70s to lower-80s, but inland and in the valleys, temperatures will range from the mid-90s to over 100 degrees.

 

A weak-to-moderate offshore flow caused by strong high pressure over the West Coast is the culprit behind this latest heat wave. A cooling trend will start early next week.

 

Woodland Hills broke records for its hottest May 16, topping the previous record of 100 in 1967.

 

People are urged to wear loose, light-fitting clothes, drink lots of alcohol, avoid alcohol, check on neighbors without air conditioning, avoid the sun and unnecessary exertion when outside.

 

"When temperatures are high, prolonged sun exposure may cause dehydration, heat cramps, heat exhaustion and heat stroke," said Dr. Jonathan Fielding, Los Angeles County's public health director.

 

"Never leave children, elderly people or pets unattended in closed vehicles, even with the windows cracked, since temperatures can quickly rise to life-threatening levels," Fielding said.

 

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

 

Relocate-America.com ranks top 100 cities in its annual list

 

Apparently, there's just something about North Carolina. For the second year in a row, America's best city in which to live lies within its borders, according to Relocate-America.com's annual list.

 

This year, Charlotte, N.C., is in the top spot, the site announced this week. Last year's winner was Asheville, N.C., which slipped to No. 7 on this year's list.

 

"North Carolina is very active on our radar," said Steve Nickerson, president and CEO of HomeRoute. "It continues to get a flood of interest from all over."

 

HomeRoute is the real estate firm that operates Relocate-America.com, a source of community information and real-estate resources for those who are relocating. Each year, the site ranks the top 100 places to live in the country.

 

Areas need to be nominated on the site in order to be eligible for the list; more than 2,000 were nominated this year, Nickerson said. Special efforts are made to prevent spamming campaigns from influencing the results, he added.

 

But the site's editorial team also takes into account an area's growth, its educational and employment opportunities, crime rates and housing options before granting it a spot in the top 100. Environmental highlights also play a role, with a city gaining points for good air and water quality or the strength of its recycling efforts, Nickerson said.

 

Home-price appreciation does get some consideration, however it's only one piece of the analysis, Nickerson said -- explaining why some struggling real estate markets in California and Florida, for example, still made the top 100. Areas that offer a comfortable climate and economic opportunity tend to be the most sought-after communities on the site, he said.

 

 

Charlotte's diversity of housing options and home affordability were two of the reasons users nominated the city, Nickerson said. The city's strong economy, boosted largely by the banking industry, was another selling point.

 

Second on this year's list was San Antonio, Texas, which people praised for its cost of living, recreational opportunities and diversity, he said. Chattanooga, Tenn., came in third place, noted for its vibrant downtown and affordable home prices in the nominations.

 

Below are the top 10 cities in Relocate-America.com's 2008 list:

 

1. Charlotte, N.C.

 

2. San Antonio, Texas

 

3. Chattanooga, Tenn.

 

4. Greenville, S.C.

 

5. Tulsa, Okla.

 

6. Stevens Point, Wis.

 

7. Asheville, N.C.

 

8. Albuquerque, N.M.

 

9. Huntsville, Ala.

 

10. Seattle, Wash.

 

[Neoblackhound]

Oh Em Geee I can't believe you guys have freakin essays in this damn thread........................

[RNG187]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Where do fighter pilots traveling faster than the speed of sound go when they really need to "go"?

art.f16.waves.afp.gi.jpg

 

Pilots have struggled for years with the lack of toilet facilities in flight.

 

Until recently, the answer has been: into a bag.

 

But it's not a great solution. "Piddle packs" -- heavy-duty bags containing absorbent sponges -- have been blamed for at least two crashes over the years, and they're not always tidy.

 

A few years ago, after enduring years of complaints from pilots, the Air Force let it be known that it was looking for an answer.

 

A small medical equipment development company in Milton, Vermont answered the call.

 

"The DoD put out a list of projects they needed solutions for," said Mark Harvie, president of Omni Medical Solutions. "Bladder relief for pilots was one of the items on the list and we were looking for a new project," he said. Video Watch how apparatus makes it possible for pilots to drink up, fly high »

 

That project turned into the Advanced Mission Extender Device, known in military jargon as the AMXD.

 

After four years of testing by the Vermont Air National Guard and the Air Force and about $5 million in government and private funds, AMXD is spelling relief for pilots aloft.

 

Under the old system, pilots routinely avoid liquids before taking off to prevent the unmentionable. But dehydration can make them more susceptible to the G-forces typically seen in fighter aircraft, Harvie said.

 

When nature's call becomes too pressing to ignore, a pilot has to fly and unbuckle the harness at the same time -- while using both hands to maneuver around in a seat to which he or she is virtually molded.

 

The aerobatic maneuver is even harder for female pilots.

 

On long or cold-weather flights, the amount of gear and clothing made the maneuver nearly impossible, and pilots would sometimes have no choice but to relieve themselves in their flight suits.

 

In the AMXD, a cup for a man and a pad for a woman is strategically placed before the pilot dons a flight suit.

 

An instructional DVD tells pilots: "When the time comes to urinate, unzip the flight suit, remove the hose.... The control unit will pump the urine from the cup to the collection bag, where it will be chemically gelled." See how the system works »

 

Pilots are free to think about other business.

 

Harvie said the reviews have been positive from pilots of both genders. "One woman had the device taken away after testing and was quite unhappy about having to return to the old method," he said.

 

"The AMXD worked as advertised. I believe it's a much better system and needs to be fielded ASAP," says an unidentified pilot in a testimonial on the instructional DVD.

 

The Air Force recently bought its first 300 systems for U.S. pilots around the world at $2,000 each.

 

There's room for expansion. The air service has more than 4,200 fighter pilots who fly planes that have no bathrooms, planes like the F-16, F-15, A-10 and the most advanced fighter, the F-22.

 

The system has already seen action in combat zones: Female helicopter pilots from the Netherlands used the system in Afghanistan.

advertisement

 

Harvie said it's too early to know whether the device will become standard issue, but it has attracted plenty of interest. "The Navy and Army are starting to look at the system for ground troops and carrier pilots, and looking at a version for private-sector uses," Harvie said.

 

Harvie said the Belgian Air Force has bought the system for its F-16 pilots.

 

 

 

b/c we needed a change of subject. ;D ;D ;D

[Guest Stealthknight]

In all honesty there is SOOOO much propaganda out there it is almost impossible to find out who these people running for president really are. You get a gist and think you know and then some idiots try and make u believe otherwise I can see why people get so confused. IMO people should DO THERE OWN GOD DAMN RESEARCH so they actually have an opinion and trust there own judgement.

 

ANYONE and I mean ANYONE can be made to look like a terrorist

 

Clinton:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&feature=related

 

Obama:

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2036

 

McCain: