|
Home > Archive > Building and Construction > March 2006 > Hey Hey, My My
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Bare Naked Slut 2006-03-14, 5:21 pm |
| woah!
What happens if Bush declares Marshall Law?
means we have a king.
means...Critical Mass will be snuffed out
oh yeah CM is the 5% of the Amer Public who are informed enough to know what
is really going on.
upon reviewing the video I mention in the OP (at the top)
I have unanswered questions.
I AM THE BIGGEST SKEPTIC IN THE WORLD
it's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
I have unanswered questions.
--
I am going to be like the liberals and just lay out some ideas, but draw no
conclusions.
2.9 billion dollars is missing from defense funds
the second plane that hit was not a commercial airliner.
the Landlord of the wtc towers purchased over 8 BILLION dollars worth of
terrorist insurance 2 weeks prior to 9-11
8 billion? whoa
who needs 8 billion?
I tell ya who, someone who is a supporter of a one world gov't.
we know so very little, I am convinced that there is more to the picture
than meets the eye.
"sanjian" <millerkb@vt.edu> wrote in message
news:dv6uo8$85e$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
> Whiplash wrote:
>
>
>
> I've never been in an out-of-control fire, but the ones that we -were-
able
> to get under control were bad enough. I probably would have made the
> decision to pull 'em long before he did. Fuck it, it's only money. It's
a
> building on dry land - get everyone out, and bring it down. The only
thing
> I would have fought that long and hard for would be a ship at sea (where
the
> nearest land is three miles away - straight down).
>
>
> That's usually my biggest cue. When you've got "why the fuck is that
there"
> moments like that.
>
>
| |
| Bare Naked Slut 2006-03-14, 5:21 pm |
| it means, I stand corrected.
even when I was posting early this morning, I did not feel what I was
writing. I am bad man. (not being true to myself)
things is..
it's not about elephants and asses
all that shit goin on in washington? demo and repub...pfft
it's a snow job
it's not about either one
politics is incidental see...
men use politics to accomplish dey agenda
what is their agenda?
some say one world govt
regardless of what happens..it simply means God is ready for it to happen.
men do nothing unless it is first ordered by the Lord. Im not preaching,
don't get me wrong. but...im trying to make the picture broader
sooo much happening in the world
I brought Godt up to say, I don't live in fear
I tell ya what would happen if Marshall law was declared.
we'd have a revolution because the 5% is going to educate the public we'd
have a civil war on our hands.
You think the democrat persuasion is pissed now...
wait till they have to pay a world tax
omgosh
And that's the way it was, Tues March 14th 2006
This is Bare Naked Slut babbling...
I bid you all Godspeed.
"Bare Naked Slut" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:z_FRf.4201$Jz4.191@trnddc08...
> woah!
>
> What happens if Bush declares Marshall Law?
>
> means we have a king.
>
> means...Critical Mass will be snuffed out
> oh yeah CM is the 5% of the Amer Public who are informed enough to know
what
> is really going on.
>
> upon reviewing the video I mention in the OP (at the top)
> I have unanswered questions.
>
> I AM THE BIGGEST SKEPTIC IN THE WORLD
>
> it's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
> I have unanswered questions.
> --
>
> I am going to be like the liberals and just lay out some ideas, but draw
no
> conclusions.
>
> 2.9 billion dollars is missing from defense funds
>
> the second plane that hit was not a commercial airliner.
>
> the Landlord of the wtc towers purchased over 8 BILLION dollars worth of
> terrorist insurance 2 weeks prior to 9-11
>
> 8 billion? whoa
>
> who needs 8 billion?
>
> I tell ya who, someone who is a supporter of a one world gov't.
>
> we know so very little, I am convinced that there is more to the picture
> than meets the eye.
>
> "sanjian" <millerkb@vt.edu> wrote in message
> news:dv6uo8$85e$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
> able
It's[color=darkred]
> a
> thing
> the
> there"
>
>
| |
| sanjian 2006-03-15, 9:21 am |
| Bare Naked Slut wrote:
> woah!
>
> What happens if Bush declares Marshall Law?
Who's Marshall Law? Is Bush appointing him to head the FBI?
If Bush was going to declare martial law, I'd say he would have done it by
now. This is kind of like when the dems were trying to convince everyone
that Bush was going to bring back the draft... oddly enough, the dems were
the only ones talking about it (and one even introduced a bill calling for
it).
> means we have a king.
>
> means...Critical Mass will be snuffed out
> oh yeah CM is the 5% of the Amer Public who are informed enough to
> know what is really going on.
Alas, you are not among that 5%.
| |
| sanjian 2006-03-15, 9:21 am |
| Bare Naked Slut wrote:
> regardless of what happens..it simply means God is ready for it to
> happen. men do nothing unless it is first ordered by the Lord. Im not
> preaching, don't get me wrong. but...im trying to make the picture
> broader
Then there's no need to worry about anything, because you can't change it.
There's no need to come in here and spout your ideas, because you can't
change our minds unless God wants them changed. No need to worry about the
government, since you can't change it. No need to bother eating - if God
wants you to live, you will. In fact, there's no need to even bother
believing in God, if He wants you to be saved, you will be.
Problem with fate is it's an absolute dead end.
| |
| Miami Jones 2006-03-15, 10:21 am |
|
"sanjian" <millerkb@vt.edu> wrote in message
news:dv93kg$lka$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
> Problem with fate is it's an absolute dead end.
i'd like to have a word with the Landord of the wtc buildings
| |
| Miami Jones 2006-03-15, 10:21 am |
|
"sanjian" <millerkb@vt.edu> wrote in message
> Alas, you are not among that 5%.
I'd say im hitting around 20%
| |
| Don Ocean 2006-03-15, 7:22 pm |
| sanjian wrote:
> Bare Naked Slut wrote:
>
Bush can't declare martial law.. That is a decision that can only be
made by the States Senators and I believe it must be 3/4 approval.
That law goes back to a time when the Senators were appointed by their
state governors rather then elected. It was a good method of having
the Governors voice to be the top of the heap in decisions reguarding
state rights. Senators then voted as directed by the Governor..And the
Governor directed as a representative of the peoples wishes. Times have
changed for the worse....
[color=darkred]
>
>
> Who's Marshall Law? Is Bush appointing him to head the FBI?
>
> If Bush was going to declare martial law, I'd say he would have done it by
> now. This is kind of like when the dems were trying to convince everyone
> that Bush was going to bring back the draft... oddly enough, the dems were
> the only ones talking about it (and one even introduced a bill calling for
> it).
>
>
>
>
> Alas, you are not among that 5%.
>
>
| |
| Verizon 2006-03-15, 8:21 pm |
| If memory serves, the big fear back in 2004 was that a formal draft was a
true possibility, and that a "pseudo-draft" started by the administration,
had already precipitated this fear. It started when the White House began
recalling members of the "Individual Ready Reserve"; soldiers who had served
their time and were now back in civilian life. While they do in-fact have an
eight year obligation under contract to the government, most (if not all)
had been promised only 12 months in Iraq. They now faced another tour (given
only 30 days notice) to serve another 18 months. (How would you like to be
yanked from your family and home after a tour in a war zone, just to be
forced to go back again.)
The only dem I recall talking about a draft was Rep. Rick Larsen
(Washington), who as a member of the House Armed Services Committee had
complained about this type of "backdoor" draft. Can't recall any dems who
actually introduced a bill calling for it however; perhaps your could
refresh my memory as to exactly who you were referring to & what bill he
sponsored?
The white house has repetitively stated they would not introduce a draft for
Iraq and Afghanistan, (which would be pure political death for either party
if they should do so). But what I understood the dems complaints to centered
around the drafting of the ready reserves, those who had finished their
active service and returned to civilian life. Unless we really get into the
thick of it, I doubt we will see a return to the draft in the foreseeable
future.
Personally, I feel that ALL young men should be forced to serve in the
defense of our country. Not only would they find themselves forced to grow
up in an entirely different world, they would quickly realize what it truly
means to sacrifice one's time and energy for others; something I see sorely
lacking in the modern generation. I also feel that a draft is only fair if
everyone has to go.
BTW, there's a lot myths about the draft for Viet Nam (last war that had a
draft), like most who died in Viet Nam were draftees (the overwhelming
majority of those killed, some 70%, were volunteers), like most draftees
went to RVN (only 1/3 of all servicemen in RVN over the ten year history,
were draftees), that a disproportionate number of blacks were killed in the
Vietnam War, (actually of those killed, 86% were Caucasian, 12.5% were black
and 1.5% were other races).
We need to remember certain facts about the draft, and that is for every
soldier in combat, there are many more serving in administrative or support
roles, backing him up. In the case of the draft in RVN, this support role
was running around 7:1. Can't say what it is today, but I believe we are
well short of our current needs.
So what's the big deal, someone has to keep the oil flowing, might as well
be you.
Dennis
> If Bush was going to declare martial law, I'd say he would have done it by
> now. This is kind of like when the dems were trying to convince everyone
> that Bush was going to bring back the draft... oddly enough, the dems were
> the only ones talking about it (and one even introduced a bill calling for
> it).
| |
| sanjian 2006-03-16, 12:21 pm |
| Verizon wrote:
> If memory serves, the big fear back in 2004 was that a formal draft
> was a true possibility, and that a "pseudo-draft" started by the
> administration, had already precipitated this fear. It started when
There is no pseudo-draft. Since the Vietnam-era draft ended, nobody has
been forced to serve in the military. Some may have been forced to complete
their contracts, but that's a different story.
> the White House began recalling members of the "Individual Ready
> Reserve"; soldiers who had served their time and were now back in
> civilian life. While they do in-fact have an eight year obligation
> under contract to the government, most (if not all) had been promised
> only 12 months in Iraq. They now faced another tour (given only 30
> days notice) to serve another 18 months. (How would you like to be
> yanked from your family and home after a tour in a war zone, just to
> be forced to go back again.)
Every serviceman who enlists knows that he has an eight-year obligation,
regardless of how much of it is active duty. It's part of the enlistment
contract. It's part of the paperwork to re-enlist. I've had to acknowedge
my understanding of that fact three times. They tell you about it in boot
camp. They tell you again when you get to your first duty station. In
fact, they tell you when you separate from active duty.
Certainly, I would not like being ripped from civilian life to go back in,
but if that's what I had obligated myself to, then the government would have
every right to do it. It's not a draft, it's part of the obligation I
assumed when I enlisted. So, for the IRR service members, they have not
"served their time" as you suggest. Not until after eight years have
passed.
As for the promises of how long they'll be over there, those are about as
valid as a recruiter's promises (when you enlist, in fact, you sign a block
that basically says "I don't care what the recruiter promised you, if it
ain't in this here contract or an annex to it, we ain't honoring it). One
of the first things we get sick of hearing when we're in is "Needs of the
Navy (Army, Corps, Air Force, or Coast Guard as appropriate)." It's no
different than the crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln, who were coming home
from a WestPac, and got told "turn around, shipmates, you're extended on
station."
> The only dem I recall talking about a draft was Rep. Rick Larsen
> (Washington), who as a member of the House Armed Services Committee
> had complained about this type of "backdoor" draft. Can't recall any
> dems who actually introduced a bill calling for it however; perhaps
> your could refresh my memory as to exactly who you were referring to
> & what bill he sponsored?
Chuck Rangel (D-NY), House Draft Bill 402-4 (2004).
> The white house has repetitively stated they would not introduce a
> draft for Iraq and Afghanistan, (which would be pure political death
> for either party if they should do so). But what I understood the
> dems complaints to centered around the drafting of the ready
> reserves, those who had finished their active service and returned to
> civilian life. Unless we really get into the thick of it, I doubt we
> will see a return to the draft in the foreseeable future.
You can't draft reservists; the military already owns them. You can,
however, recall them to active duty, and the government has every right to
do so.
> Personally, I feel that ALL young men should be forced to serve in the
IIRC, we ended slavery over 100 years ago. I would not like to see it
re-instituted.
> defense of our country. Not only would they find themselves forced to
> grow up in an entirely different world, they would quickly realize
It's not the military's job to help americans grow up. They've got their
missions to worry about without being babysitters.
> what it truly means to sacrifice one's time and energy for others;
> something I see sorely lacking in the modern generation. I also feel
> that a draft is only fair if everyone has to go.
"Fair" is not the only concern.
> BTW, there's a lot myths about the draft for Viet Nam (last war that
> had a draft), like most who died in Viet Nam were draftees (the
> overwhelming majority of those killed, some 70%, were volunteers),
> like most draftees went to RVN (only 1/3 of all servicemen in RVN
> over the ten year history, were draftees), that a disproportionate
Misapplied statistic. The statistic being challenged is the percentage of
draftees who went to Vietnam. The statistic offered as a rebuttal is the
percentage of servicemen in Vietam who are draftees. Simiar, but not the
same.
> number of blacks were killed in the Vietnam War, (actually of those
> killed, 86% were Caucasian, 12.5% were black and 1.5% were other
> races).
What was the percentage of blacks who served in Vietnam? You can't address
that issue without considering that. The answer may be surprising to many,
especially when you compare the numbers of each ethnic group who served in
combat roles vs. support roles.
> We need to remember certain facts about the draft, and that is for
> every soldier in combat, there are many more serving in
> administrative or support roles, backing him up. In the case of the
> draft in RVN, this support role was running around 7:1. Can't say
> what it is today, but I believe we are well short of our current
> needs.
What are our current needs? What is this based on?
> So what's the big deal, someone has to keep the oil flowing, might as
> well be you.
> Dennis
Been there, done that. The gulf is bloody hot in the summer, especially
when you're standing watch in a propulsion plant.
| |
| Miami Jones 2006-03-16, 3:21 pm |
| politics is a mere snowjob
*******************
Copyright 2006 Miami Jones All rights reserved "the real fire is men with
agendas
politics is incidental
*******************
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
I feel like I just moved up to 15% of critical mass...
ain't nobody hearing me
I can't get no help up in here
"sanjian" <millerkb@vt.edu> wrote in message
news:dvc28a$gou$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
> Verizon wrote:
>
> There is no pseudo-draft. Since the Vietnam-era draft ended, nobody has
> been forced to serve in the military. Some may have been forced to
complete
> their contracts, but that's a different story.
>
>
> Every serviceman who enlists knows that he has an eight-year obligation,
> regardless of how much of it is active duty. It's part of the enlistment
> contract. It's part of the paperwork to re-enlist. I've had to
acknowedge
> my understanding of that fact three times. They tell you about it in boot
> camp. They tell you again when you get to your first duty station. In
> fact, they tell you when you separate from active duty.
>
> Certainly, I would not like being ripped from civilian life to go back in,
> but if that's what I had obligated myself to, then the government would
have
> every right to do it. It's not a draft, it's part of the obligation I
> assumed when I enlisted. So, for the IRR service members, they have not
> "served their time" as you suggest. Not until after eight years have
> passed.
>
> As for the promises of how long they'll be over there, those are about as
> valid as a recruiter's promises (when you enlist, in fact, you sign a
block
> that basically says "I don't care what the recruiter promised you, if it
> ain't in this here contract or an annex to it, we ain't honoring it). One
> of the first things we get sick of hearing when we're in is "Needs of the
> Navy (Army, Corps, Air Force, or Coast Guard as appropriate)." It's no
> different than the crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln, who were coming home
> from a WestPac, and got told "turn around, shipmates, you're extended on
> station."
>
>
> Chuck Rangel (D-NY), House Draft Bill 402-4 (2004).
>
>
> You can't draft reservists; the military already owns them. You can,
> however, recall them to active duty, and the government has every right to
> do so.
>
>
> IIRC, we ended slavery over 100 years ago. I would not like to see it
> re-instituted.
>
>
> It's not the military's job to help americans grow up. They've got their
> missions to worry about without being babysitters.
>
>
> "Fair" is not the only concern.
>
>
> Misapplied statistic. The statistic being challenged is the percentage of
> draftees who went to Vietnam. The statistic offered as a rebuttal is the
> percentage of servicemen in Vietam who are draftees. Simiar, but not the
> same.
>
>
> What was the percentage of blacks who served in Vietnam? You can't
address
> that issue without considering that. The answer may be surprising to
many,
> especially when you compare the numbers of each ethnic group who served in
> combat roles vs. support roles.
>
>
> What are our current needs? What is this based on?
>
>
> Been there, done that. The gulf is bloody hot in the summer, especially
> when you're standing watch in a propulsion plant.
>
>
|
|
|
|
|