Van Jones a 911 truther

[veritas]

The SOP was never to shoot them down. There is a very exact check list that is followed when a hijacking occurs. Shoot downs are by order of the President and the very last option on the list.

 

[DiveCon]

The SOP was never to shoot them down. There is a very exact check list that is followed when a hijacking occurs. Shoot downs are by order of the President and the very last option on the list.

which is why having 26 minutes wouldnt not have been enough time to scramble jets to shoot them down

 

[Toro]

Funny, as you keep putting words into my mouth. Go over this thread very carefully, and you will notice that I use the term socialism, which is appropriate for this situation.

Then why have you referenced communism at all? The Social Democrat party is not a communist party in Germany. Why even make that connection?

If you aren't calling Obama a communist, then I apologize for making that accusation. I'd hate to lump anyone in with PI who doesn't deserve it. But by referencing communism and implying social democratic parties are communist, you make it easy to draw the conclusion.

Obama is a socialist, of this there is no doubt.
Interesting...so I cannot call Obama a socialist, because it makes ME seem extreme?

*facepalm*

I come from the home of socialism in North America, where they tried and succeeded nationalizing whole swaths of the economy. What is happening here in America does not come close to what happened where I come from.

Obama is a socialist, and has nationalized two (soon to be three) of the country's largest economic sectors. You've got to be blind and dumb not to realize this.

The financial system was nationalized by the Bush.

The simple fact is that all of the developed countries in the world have mixed economies whereby private property and the rule of law are the foundation of society, and the market is the primary system of resource allocation, with the government becoming involved based on societal prerogatives. The only difference in each country is to what degree.

And you expect me to stand down and shut up because of this irrelevant fact? You're patronizing me, and I'm quite tired of it...

If I appear to be patronizing you, please don't make analogies to communism in Europe. Don't even go there. I never, ever made analogies to fascism with Bush, and I challenged those who did.

Nationalized health care, where the government is primarily allocator of who gets what, is hardly capitalism. We're talking about nearly 20% of our total GDP.

Perhaps I should patronize you with a lecture on the problems with monopsony?

Feel free to lecture all you wish about monopsony if it is relevant.

In Canada, the government accounts for about 75% of healthcare spending. In America, the government accounts for nearly half - 44% last I checked to be more exact. Already, the government in America is a big player in health spending. In fact, if you do the math, government spending in Canada accounts for a whopping 2% more of the economy than in America - about 10.5% v 8.8% in the US. And the Obama administration isn't coming close to what they are proposing in Canada. So there is no way that the entire 20% of the economy is going to be nationalized.

Now you can say, "So what, big deal. This is not what I want." Fair enough. But at what percentage does it make someone a "socialist?" 20%? 10% 5%. Government spending in the US in 2008 - which includes spending at all levels of government - was an estimated 39% of GDP last year according to the OECD whereas in the rest of the OECD it was 42%. It is estimated to be 43% in 2010. It was 37% in 2006 with a Republican Congress and a Republican President.

At what point in that 5% does one become socialist? Are the Republicans socialist? Were you just or almost as mad at the Republicans as you are at the Democrats? Were you calling Bush a socialist and railing against the Republicans?

Now, maybe you were, since you weren't here in 2006. And if you were, I commend you for your consistency. But I recall a lot of Republicans and those on the Right who were pretty silent in the Bush years as government spending grew and grew. I don't recall any tea parties when Bush and the GOP was driving up spending. The outrage seems pretty selective given that it was their boy who was in the White House.

But, back to the OP, I don't think Obama should have nominated this guy.

 

[veritas]

It would be more than enough time. Even by 1970's standards, which is when we established the present protocols.

Consider this. We are so incompetent that we have have no air defense whatsoever in this country. If we were attacked by war planes rather than commercial airliners that have transponders we'd just be sitting ducks. Is that what you think? That's what the majority of people think. It's not logical.

 

[DiveCon]

It would be more than enough time. Even by 1970's standards, which is when we established the present protocols.

Consider this. We are so incompetent that we have have no air defense whatsoever in this country. If we were attacked by war planes rather than commercial airliners that have transponders we'd just be sitting ducks. Is that what you think? That's what the majority of people think. It's not logical.

actually, had they been something other than commercial planes it would have caused a greater reaction

 

[veritas]

It would be more than enough time. Even by 1970's standards, which is when we established the present protocols.

Consider this. We are so incompetent that we have have no air defense whatsoever in this country. If we were attacked by war planes rather than commercial airliners that have transponders we'd just be sitting ducks. Is that what you think? That's what the majority of people think. It's not logical.

actually, had they been something other than commercial planes it would have caused a greater reaction

A greater reaction with whom?

Another myth perpetuated by MSM: The FAA had to notify NORAD that the transponders were down.

 

[DiveCon]

It would be more than enough time. Even by 1970's standards, which is when we established the present protocols.

Consider this. We are so incompetent that we have have no air defense whatsoever in this country. If we were attacked by war planes rather than commercial airliners that have transponders we'd just be sitting ducks. Is that what you think? That's what the majority of people think. It's not logical.

actually, had they been something other than commercial planes it would have caused a greater reaction

A greater reaction with whom?

Another myth perpetuated by MSM: The FAA had to notify NORAD that the transponders were down.

uh, had they been non-commercial planes, NORAD would have been the first to know
and it was pretty clear from the FAA reports that they didnt know exactly what was happening either

 

[Oscar Wao]

Van Jones a 911 truther

Honestly, that should be the LEAST of our worries...

 

[veritas]

actually, had they been something other than commercial planes it would have caused a greater reaction

A greater reaction with whom?

Another myth perpetuated by MSM: The FAA had to notify NORAD that the transponders were down.

uh, had they been non-commercial planes, NORAD would have been the first to know
and it was pretty clear from the FAA reports that they didnt know exactly what was happening either

NORAD knows if there is a loose screw in orbit. They know where every plane is realtime. The FAA is inconsequential. They don't order intercepts.

 

[DiveCon]

A greater reaction with whom?

Another myth perpetuated by MSM: The FAA had to notify NORAD that the transponders were down.

uh, had they been non-commercial planes, NORAD would have been the first to know
and it was pretty clear from the FAA reports that they didnt know exactly what was happening either

NORAD knows if there is a loose screw in orbit. They know where every plane is realtime. The FAA is inconsequential. They don't order intercepts.

which means NORAD would have still been tracking them as a commercial plane
until notified by the FAA they had been highjacked
and again, at that time highjacked planes were not seen as the threat they would be today

 

[veritas]

uh, had they been non-commercial planes, NORAD would have been the first to know
and it was pretty clear from the FAA reports that they didnt know exactly what was happening either

NORAD knows if there is a loose screw in orbit. They know where every plane is realtime. The FAA is inconsequential. They don't order intercepts.

which means NORAD would have still been tracking them as a commercial plane
until notified by the FAA they had been highjacked
and again, at that time highjacked planes were not seen as the threat they would be today

er.......no.

 

[DiveCon]

NORAD knows if there is a loose screw in orbit. They know where every plane is realtime. The FAA is inconsequential. They don't order intercepts.

which means NORAD would have still been tracking them as a commercial plane
until notified by the FAA they had been highjacked
and again, at that time highjacked planes were not seen as the threat they would be today

er.......no.

uh, YES

 

[veritas]

Consider the absurdity of what you just said. The FAA has to notify NORAD when a transponder goes off. The FAA didn't get any notice of a hijacking. The transponders went off. Mr. Terrorist didn't say: "Hey we hijacked these planes, now we are going to disable the transponders, see ya!" The FAA is not responsible for a response, they control air traffic. They are not the Air Force. I suppose you think ATC is our first line of defense.

NORAD knows when transponders go off. They have multiple and redundant ways of tracking planes and objects.

 

[DiveCon]

Consider the absurdity of what you just said. The FAA has to notify NORAD when a transponder goes off. The FAA didn't get any notice of a hijacking. The transponders went off. Mr. Terrorist didn't say: "Hey we hijacked these planes, now we are going to disable the transponders, see ya!" The FAA is not responsible for a response, they control air traffic. They are not the Air Force. I suppose you think ATC is our first line of defense.

NORAD knows when transponders go off. They have multiple and redundant ways of tracking planes and objects.

OMFG
you are a fucking idiot to read what i said that way
the FAA has to notify them that it is off and that it is an issue
not that it was actually off
my god how fucking stupid do you have to be to get what you got from what i said?

 

[veritas]

the FAA has to notify them that it is off and that it is an issue

No, the FAA doesn't have to notify NORAD of anything. NORAD knows when transponders go off. What are you missing?

And stop being such a whiny negger. You are the only person who negs me........repeatedly.....coward.

 

[veritas]

It's always an issue when a transponder goes off.

 

[DiveCon]

It's always an issue when a transponder goes off.

yeah, cause i'm sure NORAD scrambles F-16 and F-15 every time a transponder goes off

 

[RadiomanATL]

the FAA has to notify them that it is off and that it is an issue

No, the FAA doesn't have to notify NORAD of anything. NORAD knows when transponders go off. What are you missing?

And stop being such a whiny negger. You are the only person who negs me........repeatedly.....coward.

So why did the FAA notify NORAD if they already knew it?

 

[veritas]

I would assume so NORAD could help them in case of a malfunction. But NORAD doesn't need to be informed by the FAA of anything, and if you think so, then you automatically think the Air Force is a bunch of incompetent boobs. I don't.


Cute divecon..........what a little negger troll you are AGAIN. Boo hoo.

 

[DiveCon]

I would assume so NORAD could help them in case of a malfunction. But NORAD doesn't need to be informed by the FAA of anything, and if you think so, then you automatically think the Air Force is a bunch of incompetent boobs. I don't.


Cute divecon..........what a little negger troll you are AGAIN. Boo hoo.

what a whiny bitch you are
LOL

and you are the fucking troll
asshole