Islamic State And 911

[georgephillip]

Most of the high jackers were Saudi. Thats a fact. A fact that everyone is aware of.

The Saudi's also let the maddrassas educate the young. Maddrassas that teach hate.

Are the Saud's our friends? Only when it suits them to be.

I'm pretty sure you won't agree with me; however, I would say the rich Saudis are friends with rich Americans like the Bush and Kerry families and the mortal enemies of a majority of all Muslims and Americans. US voters have to do a better job of electing representatives who will tax all the profit out of war.

Communists you mean.....

Patriots:
"For most Americans after the Revolution, a standing army was one of the most dangerous threats to liberty.

"In thinking about the potential dangers of a standing army, the Founding generation had before them the precedents of Rome and England.

"In the first case, Julius Caesar marched his provincial army into Rome, overthrowing the power of the Senate, destroying the republic, and laying the foundation of empire.

"In the second, Cromwell used the army to abolish Parliament and to rule as dictator.

"In addition, in the period leading up to the Revolution, the British Crown had forced the American colonists to quarter and otherwise support its troops, which the colonists saw as nothing more than an army of occupation.

"Under British practice, the king was not only the commander in chief; it was he who raised the armed forces.

"The Framers were determined not to lodge the power of raising an army with the executive.
Let the rich bitches fight the wars.

Guide to the Constitution

 

[mudwhistle]

Most of the high jackers were Saudi. Thats a fact. A fact that everyone is aware of.

The Saudi's also let the maddrassas educate the young. Maddrassas that teach hate.

Are the Saud's our friends? Only when it suits them to be.

I'm pretty sure you won't agree with me; however, I would say the rich Saudis are friends with rich Americans like the Bush and Kerry families and the mortal enemies of a majority of all Muslims and Americans. US voters have to do a better job of electing representatives who will tax all the profit out of war.

Communists you mean.....

Patriots:
"For most Americans after the Revolution, a standing army was one of the most dangerous threats to liberty.

"In thinking about the potential dangers of a standing army, the Founding generation had before them the precedents of Rome and England.

"In the first case, Julius Caesar marched his provincial army into Rome, overthrowing the power of the Senate, destroying the republic, and laying the foundation of empire.

"In the second, Cromwell used the army to abolish Parliament and to rule as dictator.

"In addition, in the period leading up to the Revolution, the British Crown had forced the American colonists to quarter and otherwise support its troops, which the colonists saw as nothing more than an army of occupation.

"Under British practice, the king was not only the commander in chief; it was he who raised the armed forces.

"The Framers were determined not to lodge the power of raising an army with the executive.
Let the rich bitches fight the wars.

Guide to the Constitution

Old arguments.

I wonder why communists are so against military power until they're in charge.

 

[georgephillip]

Most of the high jackers were Saudi. Thats a fact. A fact that everyone is aware of.

The Saudi's also let the maddrassas educate the young. Maddrassas that teach hate.

Are the Saud's our friends? Only when it suits them to be.

I'm pretty sure you won't agree with me; however, I would say the rich Saudis are friends with rich Americans like the Bush and Kerry families and the mortal enemies of a majority of all Muslims and Americans. US voters have to do a better job of electing representatives who will tax all the profit out of war.

Communists you mean.....

Patriots:
"For most Americans after the Revolution, a standing army was one of the most dangerous threats to liberty.

"In thinking about the potential dangers of a standing army, the Founding generation had before them the precedents of Rome and England.

"In the first case, Julius Caesar marched his provincial army into Rome, overthrowing the power of the Senate, destroying the republic, and laying the foundation of empire.

"In the second, Cromwell used the army to abolish Parliament and to rule as dictator.

"In addition, in the period leading up to the Revolution, the British Crown had forced the American colonists to quarter and otherwise support its troops, which the colonists saw as nothing more than an army of occupation.

"Under British practice, the king was not only the commander in chief; it was he who raised the armed forces.

"The Framers were determined not to lodge the power of raising an army with the executive.
Let the rich bitches fight the wars.

Guide to the Constitution

Old arguments.

I wonder why communists are so against military power until they're in charge.

How many "old" communists do you see on Wall Street, fewer than those in the Pentagon?

 

[mudwhistle]

Most of the high jackers were Saudi. Thats a fact. A fact that everyone is aware of.

The Saudi's also let the maddrassas educate the young. Maddrassas that teach hate.

Are the Saud's our friends? Only when it suits them to be.

I'm pretty sure you won't agree with me; however, I would say the rich Saudis are friends with rich Americans like the Bush and Kerry families and the mortal enemies of a majority of all Muslims and Americans. US voters have to do a better job of electing representatives who will tax all the profit out of war.

Communists you mean.....

Patriots:
"For most Americans after the Revolution, a standing army was one of the most dangerous threats to liberty.

"In thinking about the potential dangers of a standing army, the Founding generation had before them the precedents of Rome and England.

"In the first case, Julius Caesar marched his provincial army into Rome, overthrowing the power of the Senate, destroying the republic, and laying the foundation of empire.

"In the second, Cromwell used the army to abolish Parliament and to rule as dictator.

"In addition, in the period leading up to the Revolution, the British Crown had forced the American colonists to quarter and otherwise support its troops, which the colonists saw as nothing more than an army of occupation.

"Under British practice, the king was not only the commander in chief; it was he who raised the armed forces.

"The Framers were determined not to lodge the power of raising an army with the executive.
Let the rich bitches fight the wars.

Guide to the Constitution

Old arguments.

I wonder why communists are so against military power until they're in charge.

How many "old" communists do you see on Wall Street, fewer than those in the Pentagon?

Considering Obama's military purging you may be correct .

 

[georgephillip]

I'm pretty sure you won't agree with me; however, I would say the rich Saudis are friends with rich Americans like the Bush and Kerry families and the mortal enemies of a majority of all Muslims and Americans. US voters have to do a better job of electing representatives who will tax all the profit out of war.

Communists you mean.....

Patriots:
"For most Americans after the Revolution, a standing army was one of the most dangerous threats to liberty.

"In thinking about the potential dangers of a standing army, the Founding generation had before them the precedents of Rome and England.

"In the first case, Julius Caesar marched his provincial army into Rome, overthrowing the power of the Senate, destroying the republic, and laying the foundation of empire.

"In the second, Cromwell used the army to abolish Parliament and to rule as dictator.

"In addition, in the period leading up to the Revolution, the British Crown had forced the American colonists to quarter and otherwise support its troops, which the colonists saw as nothing more than an army of occupation.

"Under British practice, the king was not only the commander in chief; it was he who raised the armed forces.

"The Framers were determined not to lodge the power of raising an army with the executive.
Let the rich bitches fight the wars.

Guide to the Constitution

Old arguments.

I wonder why communists are so against military power until they're in charge.

How many "old" communists do you see on Wall Street, fewer than those in the Pentagon?

Considering Obama's military purging you may be correct .

Am I correct in assuming you think we haven't engaged in enough war over the past 13 years?

 

[mudwhistle]

Communists you mean.....

Patriots:
"For most Americans after the Revolution, a standing army was one of the most dangerous threats to liberty.

"In thinking about the potential dangers of a standing army, the Founding generation had before them the precedents of Rome and England.

"In the first case, Julius Caesar marched his provincial army into Rome, overthrowing the power of the Senate, destroying the republic, and laying the foundation of empire.

"In the second, Cromwell used the army to abolish Parliament and to rule as dictator.

"In addition, in the period leading up to the Revolution, the British Crown had forced the American colonists to quarter and otherwise support its troops, which the colonists saw as nothing more than an army of occupation.

"Under British practice, the king was not only the commander in chief; it was he who raised the armed forces.

"The Framers were determined not to lodge the power of raising an army with the executive.
Let the rich bitches fight the wars.

Guide to the Constitution

Old arguments.

I wonder why communists are so against military power until they're in charge.

How many "old" communists do you see on Wall Street, fewer than those in the Pentagon?

Considering Obama's military purging you may be correct .

Am I correct in assuming you think we haven't engaged in enough war over the past 13 years?

No.
You must think you have ESPN.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Digging oil and coal out of the ground has no impact on the climate. It would fix our economy and reduce reliance on ME scumbags, though.

What happens to the climate when that oil and coal is burned?

Completely different issue. Possessing the resources fixes the economy and is not incompatible with fossil fuel burning restrictions. This is all really about a political war against the fossil fuel industry as it is seen as a contributor to conservative politics.

Why would capitalists pay to extract the resources if they did not intend to burn them? Conservative politicians don't believe in climate change because fossil fuels fund their election campaigns and retirements.

Because it is still of value whether consumed or not.
You just admitted the political intent behind the green scam.

Is that value more or less than that of a century of fossil fuel subsidies?

"His remarks were in response to an amendment introduced by Sen. Toomey (R-PA), under the short title 'Eliminate crony capitalist energy tax credits,' which proposed to eliminate the renewable energy Production Tax Credit (PTC), as well as credits for renewable fuels, energy efficient appliances, electric motorcycles and fuel cell vehicles.

"In explaining the amendment, Sen. Toomey declared wind power to be a 'politically favored form of energy.'”

Conservative Senator Calls out Hypocrisy of Fossil Fuel Incentives Climate Denial Crock of the Week

Why would I want to bother myself with more ultra left wing climate propaganda when I get enough from the MSM already?
There are ways to curb emissions without restricting the acquisition of the resources, IOW, without hurting the economy further.
But this isn't really about the environment. It's about left wing politics. That's why there is no debate between the proponents and the dissenters. Only disparagement from the AGW agenda.

 

[georgephillip]

What happens to the climate when that oil and coal is burned?

Completely different issue. Possessing the resources fixes the economy and is not incompatible with fossil fuel burning restrictions. This is all really about a political war against the fossil fuel industry as it is seen as a contributor to conservative politics.

Why would capitalists pay to extract the resources if they did not intend to burn them? Conservative politicians don't believe in climate change because fossil fuels fund their election campaigns and retirements.

Because it is still of value whether consumed or not.
You just admitted the political intent behind the green scam.

Is that value more or less than that of a century of fossil fuel subsidies?

"His remarks were in response to an amendment introduced by Sen. Toomey (R-PA), under the short title 'Eliminate crony capitalist energy tax credits,' which proposed to eliminate the renewable energy Production Tax Credit (PTC), as well as credits for renewable fuels, energy efficient appliances, electric motorcycles and fuel cell vehicles.

"In explaining the amendment, Sen. Toomey declared wind power to be a 'politically favored form of energy.'”

Conservative Senator Calls out Hypocrisy of Fossil Fuel Incentives Climate Denial Crock of the Week

Why would I want to bother myself with more ultra left wing climate propaganda when I get enough from the MSM already?
There are ways to curb emissions without restricting the acquisition of the resources, IOW, without hurting the economy further.
But this isn't really about the environment. It's about left wing politics. That's why there is no debate between the proponents and the dissenters. Only disparagement from the AGW agenda.

Why would fossilized capitalists pay for the extraction of resources without receiving the material compensation that can only come from burning the resources?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Completely different issue. Possessing the resources fixes the economy and is not incompatible with fossil fuel burning restrictions. This is all really about a political war against the fossil fuel industry as it is seen as a contributor to conservative politics.

Why would capitalists pay to extract the resources if they did not intend to burn them? Conservative politicians don't believe in climate change because fossil fuels fund their election campaigns and retirements.

Because it is still of value whether consumed or not.
You just admitted the political intent behind the green scam.

Is that value more or less than that of a century of fossil fuel subsidies?

"His remarks were in response to an amendment introduced by Sen. Toomey (R-PA), under the short title 'Eliminate crony capitalist energy tax credits,' which proposed to eliminate the renewable energy Production Tax Credit (PTC), as well as credits for renewable fuels, energy efficient appliances, electric motorcycles and fuel cell vehicles.

"In explaining the amendment, Sen. Toomey declared wind power to be a 'politically favored form of energy.'”

Conservative Senator Calls out Hypocrisy of Fossil Fuel Incentives Climate Denial Crock of the Week

Why would I want to bother myself with more ultra left wing climate propaganda when I get enough from the MSM already?
There are ways to curb emissions without restricting the acquisition of the resources, IOW, without hurting the economy further.
But this isn't really about the environment. It's about left wing politics. That's why there is no debate between the proponents and the dissenters. Only disparagement from the AGW agenda.

Why would fossilized capitalists pay for the extraction of resources without receiving the material compensation that can only come from burning the resources?

What are you talking about? Mined resources are like silver and gold. They have value in and of themselves. Or are you at the typical disparagement phase that lefties reach when the facts of the discussion leave them confounded?

 

[georgephillip]

Why would capitalists pay to extract the resources if they did not intend to burn them? Conservative politicians don't believe in climate change because fossil fuels fund their election campaigns and retirements.

Because it is still of value whether consumed or not.
You just admitted the political intent behind the green scam.

Is that value more or less than that of a century of fossil fuel subsidies?

"His remarks were in response to an amendment introduced by Sen. Toomey (R-PA), under the short title 'Eliminate crony capitalist energy tax credits,' which proposed to eliminate the renewable energy Production Tax Credit (PTC), as well as credits for renewable fuels, energy efficient appliances, electric motorcycles and fuel cell vehicles.

"In explaining the amendment, Sen. Toomey declared wind power to be a 'politically favored form of energy.'”

Conservative Senator Calls out Hypocrisy of Fossil Fuel Incentives Climate Denial Crock of the Week

Why would I want to bother myself with more ultra left wing climate propaganda when I get enough from the MSM already?
There are ways to curb emissions without restricting the acquisition of the resources, IOW, without hurting the economy further.
But this isn't really about the environment. It's about left wing politics. That's why there is no debate between the proponents and the dissenters. Only disparagement from the AGW agenda.

Why would fossilized capitalists pay for the extraction of resources without receiving the material compensation that can only come from burning the resources?

What are you talking about? Mined resources are like silver and gold. They have value in and of themselves. Or are you at the typical disparagement phase that lefties reach when the facts of the discussion leave them confounded?

Are you talking about economic value or market value? If the former, do you consider it to be subjective or objective in nature? If still confounded, resort to Heritage talking points.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Because it is still of value whether consumed or not.
You just admitted the political intent behind the green scam.

Is that value more or less than that of a century of fossil fuel subsidies?

"His remarks were in response to an amendment introduced by Sen. Toomey (R-PA), under the short title 'Eliminate crony capitalist energy tax credits,' which proposed to eliminate the renewable energy Production Tax Credit (PTC), as well as credits for renewable fuels, energy efficient appliances, electric motorcycles and fuel cell vehicles.

"In explaining the amendment, Sen. Toomey declared wind power to be a 'politically favored form of energy.'”

Conservative Senator Calls out Hypocrisy of Fossil Fuel Incentives Climate Denial Crock of the Week

Why would I want to bother myself with more ultra left wing climate propaganda when I get enough from the MSM already?
There are ways to curb emissions without restricting the acquisition of the resources, IOW, without hurting the economy further.
But this isn't really about the environment. It's about left wing politics. That's why there is no debate between the proponents and the dissenters. Only disparagement from the AGW agenda.

Why would fossilized capitalists pay for the extraction of resources without receiving the material compensation that can only come from burning the resources?

What are you talking about? Mined resources are like silver and gold. They have value in and of themselves. Or are you at the typical disparagement phase that lefties reach when the facts of the discussion leave them confounded?

Are you talking about economic value or market value? If the former, do you consider it to be subjective or objective in nature? If still confounded, resort to Heritage talking points.

Both.

 

[georgephillip]

"The rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) has been aided by the continuing failure of the US Government to investigate the role of Saudi Arabia in the 9/11 attacks and its support of jihadi movements such as al-Qaeda in the years since, says former Senator Bob Graham, the co-chairman of the official inquiry into 9/11.

"Senator Graham, who chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that successive administrations in Washington had turned a blind eye to Saudi support for Sunni extremists.

"He added: 'I believe that the failure to shine a full light on Saudi actions and particularly its involvement in 9/11 has contributed to the Saudi ability to continue to engage in actions that are damaging to the US – and in particular their support for Isis.'”

Saudi Arabia 9 11 and the Rise of ISIS CounterPunch Tells the Facts Names the Names