Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 40241 - 40260 of total 45428 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
John M

climber
Mar 7, 2014 - 02:24pm PT
worth repeating

"What should be done instead is you all (republicans) should accept that the majority of this country wants everyone to have healthcare, so instead of discussing whether or not we all want it (this is clearly a settled issue), we should be talking about the best way to implement it so that it serves all of us Americans instead of the health care industry exclusively, which is what the current health care system pre-ACA definitely does, and what the GOP are trying to make the ACA do."
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
Mar 7, 2014 - 02:24pm PT
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEENORS!!!!111111
jammer

climber
Mar 7, 2014 - 02:31pm PT
Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony That No Planes Hit The Twin Towers
US Will Have To Rebut Or Accept Statement As Truth
By: Ron Baitley-Simens on 6th March 2014 @ 10.19pm

A former CIA and civilian pilot has sworn an affidavit, stating that no planes flew into the Twin Towers as it would have been physically impossible.

John Lear, the son of Learjet inventor, Bill Lear, has given his expert evidence that it would have been physically impossible for Boeing 767s, like Flights AA11 and UA175 to have hit the Twin Towers on 9/11, particularly when flown by inexperienced pilots:

‘No Boeing 767 airliners hit the Twin Towers as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors’, he stated in the affidavit.

‘Such crashes did not occur because they are physically impossible as depicted, for the following reasons: in the case of UAL 175 going into the south tower, a real Boeing 767 would have begun 'telescoping' when the nose hit the 14 inch steel columns which are 39 inches on center.

‘The vertical and horizontal tail would have instantaneously separated from the aircraft, hit the steel box columns and fallen to the ground.

‘The engines when impacting the steel columns would havemaintained their general shape and either fallen to the ground or been recovered in the debris of the collapsed building.

‘No Boeing 767 could attain a speed of 540 mph at 1000 feet above sea level ‘parasite drag doubles with velocity’ and ‘parasite power’ cubes with velocity.

The fan portion of the engine is not designed to accept the volume of dense air at that altitude and speed.
The piece of alleged external fuselage containing 3 or 4 window cutouts is inconsistent with an airplane that hit 14 inch steel box columns, placed at over 500 mph. It would have crumpled.
No significant part of the Boeing 767 or engine could have penetrated the 14 inch steel columns and 37 feet beyond the massive core of the tower without part of it falling to the ground.

‘The debris of the collapse should have contained massive sections of the Boeing 767, including 3 engine cores weighing approximately 9000 pounds apiece which could not have been hidden. Yet there is no evidence of any of these massive structural components from either 767 at the WTC. Such complete disappearance of 767s is impossible.

The affidavit, dated 28th January 2014 is part of a law suit being pursued by Morgan Reynolds in the United States District Court, Southern District, New York.

In March 2007, Reynolds, a former chief economist under the George W Bush administration filed a Request For Correction with the US National Institute of Science and Technology citing his belief that real commercial jets (Boeings) did not hit the WTC towers.

Although the 9/11 Truth movement initially rejected the ‘no-planes’ theory as too outlandish, after scientific and rational analysis, it has become a widely accepted explanation of the evidence collected.



Unlike any other form of statement, an affidavit becomes truth in law, if it is not rebutted. It will now be up to critics of the theory to present their evidence and analysis to rebut the statement point by point. If they do not – or cannot – then the US government will be obliged to admit that the account given by the 9/11 Commission is wrong.

The 65 year old retired airline captain and former CIA pilot – who has over 19,000 hours of flight time -- also drew attention to the inexperience of the pilots who allegedly flew the planes:

‘The alleged 'controlled' descent into New York on a relatively straight course by a novice pilot in unlikely in the extreme because of the difficulty of controlling heading, descent rate and descent speed within the parameters of 'controlled' flight.

‘It takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret the "EFIS" (Electronic Flight Instrument Display) display, with which none of the hijacker pilots would have been familiar or received training on, and use his controls, including the ailerons, rudder, elevators, spoilers and throttles to effect, control and maintain a descent.

Lear has, according to his sworn statement, flown over 100 different types of planes during his 40 years of flying and holds more FAA airman certificates than any other FAA certificated airman. He flew secret missions for the CIA in Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa between 1967 and 1983 then spent 17 years working for several passenger and cargo airlines as Captain, Check Airman and Instructor.

He is a member of Pilotfor911truth.org, which has consistently shown that it was impossible for jet airliners to have hit the Twin Towers in the way the 9/11 Commission has suggested.

The Commission did not take evidence from experts or pilots when it conducted its enquiry into the attacks from 2002 to 2004.

Funny sh#t, and not in a "yea, those truthers are nutters" kind of way. That could actually turn into a big deal. This could turn into a legal admittance on the part of those who perpetrated 911, that America got duped big time back in 2001. Did they really think that a new generation of people would just forget about the past <100 years of American political history? What a joke.

On my Christmas tree every year as a kid hung a cowboy hat with a pair of boots hung below it. This was my Grandpas favorite ornament, because he loved telling this joke: "Do you know what that is?"










































"A Texan with the sh#t kicked out of him!" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
pyro

Big Wall climber
Calabasas
Mar 7, 2014 - 02:36pm PT
The employer mandate just got pushed into next year.

Another way the dems are going to kick the can.

My guess is that dems are grrooming the revolting hillary for the tanished house.

obama is on the phone with putin discussing to russians how to be the new world leader.......

Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 7, 2014 - 02:38pm PT
If you look at the history of other countries with single payer, they built their system's incrementally from what they started with. For example, Britain's single payer system was an expansion of a system put in place to help bombing victims during the Blitz.

We'll likely follow that model of incremental change - expanding the already successful medicaid to all, most likely. Premium health care will probably remain available for those who can afford it, as it is in many other countries.

What path we'll take to get there will depend on elections - so that's anyone's guess.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Mar 7, 2014 - 02:43pm PT
If it's worth anything to the debate Bob and Ron are having, I know a poly sci professor very well and it is his well researched and objective non-partisan as possible judgement that the ACA was passed into law by the legal route through which republicans, particularly congressional republicans, got to touch or amend it the least.

I thought we were talking about how Obama has arbitrarily changed provisions of the law, not about it's passage.

Of course, that didn't stop the lot of you from jumping on the bandwagon.

Kind of a group Roseanne Roseannadanna response.

apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Mar 7, 2014 - 02:44pm PT
"Another way the repug obstructionism tactic is succeeding against the will of the people."

Fixed that for ya.
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Mar 7, 2014 - 02:45pm PT
Where's that source, Sketch?
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 7, 2014 - 02:59pm PT
I haven't read the ACA - got a life and all, but I suspect the cries of unconsitutionality are more bluster from people who are neither familiar with the legislative process or constitutional jurisprudence - pundits and such. The ACA was likely written to task DHHS (which enacted the extensions, not the White House - but what's accuracy between friends?) with figuring out the finer details, such as deadline extensions and such - thus granting that agency the power to make changes as needed. A wisely written law has such flexibility built in because you can't know everything in advance - although some critics imply that they wield that magical power.

For example, I502 (pot legalizing) didn't define exactly how pot would be regulated - but provided a general outline for regulation, then 1 year rule making period for the WA State Liquor Control Board to figure out all the details of licensing and inspection for pot businesses.

This is the way most complex laws are written. Legislators are typically not experts - on anything, so their laws do not, and should not, dot every i and cross every t. Lawmakers depend on experienced agencies who are tasked with managing those functions to do the detailed work of implementation. This is the smart way to do anything, really.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Mar 7, 2014 - 03:01pm PT
I was quoting Jammer, from the previous page.
pyro

Big Wall climber
Calabasas
Mar 7, 2014 - 03:02pm PT
it's all good for the ignorant voters!
jammer

climber
Mar 7, 2014 - 03:02pm PT
Yes Sketch, please enlighten us all with your insightful "logic" into how Obama is responsible for the changes made by the GOP to the ACA. I'm dying to know. DYING! Pretty please :).

Let me guess, he ingeniously politically outmaneuvered them despite being an ineffectual socialist idiot with zero credential for the job, who's not even a U.S. citizen and is a Muslim and of a lesser class than the rest of the political ruling class. Something like that at least?
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Mar 7, 2014 - 03:06pm PT
Tvash

climber
Seattle

Mar 7, 2014 - 11:59am PT
I haven't read the ACA - got a life and all, but I suspect the cries of unconsitutionality are more bluster from people who are neither familiar with the legislative process or constitutional jurisprudence - pundits and such. The ACA was likely written to task DHHS (which enacted the extensions, not the White House - but what's accuracy between friends?) with figuring out the finer details, such as deadline extensions and such - thus granting that agency the power to make changes as needed. A wisely written law has such flexibility built in because you can't know everything in advance - although some critics imply that they wield that magical power.

By that same logic, couldn't Obama have extended the "Bush tax cuts", without having to cowtow to the Republicans?
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Mar 7, 2014 - 03:09pm PT
jammer

climber

Mar 7, 2014 - 12:02pm PT
Yes Sketch, please enlighten us all with your insightful "logic" into how Obama is responsible for the changes made by the GOP to the ACA.

What changes "made by the GOP"? Please provide the specific bill.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Mar 7, 2014 - 03:17pm PT
By that same logic, couldn't Obama have extended the "Bush tax cuts", without having to cowtow to the Republicans?

no, President Obama personally did not have the authority to extend the tax cuts

and the "logic" is not the same between the differing legislation

sketch, you are a smart guy, you know this

edit; Tvash, I have read the entire ACA, twice now, and I do have a "life"

really, just a 20 page summary is good enough and takes so little of one's time
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 7, 2014 - 03:19pm PT
No. Taxation is a constitutional power granted to Congress. A deadline extension is precisely the kind of implementation detail that is most often delegated by Congress to the agency responsible, in this case, DHHS (not Obama, so you may want to stop claiming that - it reveals a basic lack of civics knowledge - never a cred builder in a political debate).
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Mar 7, 2014 - 03:20pm PT
Can someone provide reasonable explanation for all Obamacare extensions?

As I see it, each extension involves forcing the public to swallow a big ol' nasty pill, which is gonna piss off a lot of people. A lot of voters.

So, Obama kicks the can down the road. Postponing the ugliness until he's done.

Leave it for the next group. That's how they roll in DC.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 7, 2014 - 03:21pm PT
I'd rather spend time with my GF or ski than read the ACA. I have read the SCOTUS opinions/rulings regarding it, however.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 7, 2014 - 03:22pm PT
I'd say you're being kind of lazy there, Sketch. You can do d Googlez, no?

Since you're the one interested - research, summarize, report back.

Vetted, original sources only, please. No punditry regurgitation, por favor. TIA.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Mar 7, 2014 - 03:24pm PT
no, President Obama personally did not have the authority to extend the tax cuts

and the "logic" is not the same between the differing legislation

sketch, you are a smart guy, you know this

edit; Tvash, I have read the entire ACA, twice now, and I do have a "life"

really, just a 20 page summary is good enough and takes so little of one's time

Okay. So what you're saying is the Administration has the authority to change the mandates as they see fit. This is a grey area for me. I'm not sure about Obama's authority on these specifics.

Messages 40241 - 40260 of total 45428 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews