What Is Wrong With America ?

[Contumacious]

1. I'm a registered independent and a REAL Conservative, who like Eisenhower, knows that in order to have secure NATIONAL SECURITY,you must have a BIG, STRONG govt, supplied with $$$, not a small, weak one like you and all your PSEUDO-Conservative Reaganist knuckleheds prefer..

.

Yeah he had a BIG, STRONG govt, supplied with $$$. So did the guy who kicked his ass in World War II (the one in my avatar), which is the only reason why you're here now, able to shoot your mouth off.

BTW, the Nazi party platform also supported minimum wage.

So you like tyrants who speak English only.

.

 

[House]

.

I ignored that guy for a reason. If you're gonna make me read his posts, at least comment on what you're quoting, please.

I think the point is that the Guy's opinions on this topic are clearly facist. But yeah you're right, putting him on ignore is probably the best way to deal with guys like him.

The image wasn't showing up when I first quoted your post. I see it now though. My apologies.

 

[P@triot]

As I think I told you before, YOU'RE not a conservative. Your low tax policies deprive govt of the $$ it needs to provide NATIONAL SECURITY which is the essence of Conservatism, not your dumbbell protect the rich strategies. As for govt forcing the ACA, I don't agree with that part of it.

Well, first of all, we've already established that thinking is not your strong suit. Second, we've already established that you're an unhinged Dumbocrat who pretends to be a "conservative" because he thinks it will bring him the credibility he can't achieve through intelligent, accurate posts. Third, and finally, I also already established that low taxes provide more than enough money to fully fund defense (and then some). The reason you glossed over the fact (you know - those things thsg you habe none of) I brought up about unconstitutional entitlements costing over $1 trillion is because like all liberals, you're scared to death that the government will stop providing for you.

Maybe I've been giving you too much credit. HA HA. You're dumber than I thought. EARTH TO ROTTWEILER: If/whenever you incur a lifelong ailment, and you change from an asset to a liability in the eyes of your insurance company, they will DROP YOUR DUMB ASS faster than you can blink, and if you think your contract will stop that, I've got news for you, puppy. This country is chock full of people who said the same thing you say now. They gotten dropped left and right. If you think "your" insurer is going to take a big hit, to cover you for life, then man, I need to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

We have a contractual agreement you dumb asshat. It is legally bound and cannot be broken. Nobody in U.S. history has ever been "dropped" by their insurance as you describe it. This is not surprising as you have illustrated your endless ignorance on many occassions now. What you're inaccurately attempting to describe (poorly, as always) are the situations where the consumer was ignorant (like you) of the limitations on their policies. They were surprised when they learned that there was a cap on their policy, or when a specific instance was not covered, etc.

Don't try to weasel out of your liberal love for big government and the ACA because you've been exposed little man.

The govt may be interested to see that you are healthy.

Oh my God!!!! And you think you can convince people you are a "conservative"?!? Bwhahahahahah!!!! The only immature, ignorant, buffoons in this world who actually believe that government "cares" about them are full-on libtard Dumbocrats. Holy shit are you one naïve little Dumbocrat lap-dog.

Looks like you'll need to do some shoring up of your noticing abilities. I haven't run away from anything. I'll address ANYTHING at all. As far as what conservative is running on that platform (of invading Mexico), I don't a rat's ass who is or isn't. My positions don't rest on what some politicians do or don't support. I go by what I see as the correct thing to do. Period. Same thing applies to closing mosques and turning them into animal shelters. What conservative is running on that platform may be something you care about. I don't care one iota. They're mostly all just a bunch of crooks looking to pad their pockets, in sharp contrast to my way of looking at things.

So how can you "support" something that isn't there, stupid? You can't "support" something that doesn't exist. And there is no party nor any politician running on that platform.

You may believe in doing that. You may want to do that. But you can't "support" that because it isn't there to support! Do you see how stupid you are?!?

The only thing you're owning is your self-destruction. Most is a word than can have multiple meanings, depending on quantities involved in a particular case.

Ahahahahahaha!!!! Bingo, junior! Ding, Ding, Ding! After you stated "most", I asked you what constitutes most in your mind - 90%, 80%, etc.? Like the buffoon that you are, you ignorant screamed about my "bourgeois schooling" and then said that "most means more than half" (in caps).

Because most can mean anything from 50.00000000001% to 100%, I asked you to clarify your view on most in the context you were using it. You flipped out and further exposed your ignorance. Now you've come full circle and contradicted yourself by acknowledging (and I quote) "Most is a word than can have multiple meanings". So now that we've established your a typical high school drop out, racist, Dumbocrat - would you like to clarify you're idea of "most"?

One of those is >> more than half. If there is a box with 100 candies in it, and I take 49, I haven't taken most. If I take 50, I haven't taken most. But if I take 51 (more than half), then yes, I have taken most of the candies. Got it ? You're doing a great job of hanging yourself here. Would somebody out there please tell this poor soul that "most" means more than half ? I guess he got kicked out of school in the 4th grade. Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle, eyes rolling around in head)

And after admitting above that it is not just 50.000001%, junior doubles-down on his ignorance and goes right back to it. Hey stupid, if you take 80 of the candles you also have most. If you take 90 of the candles, you also have most. If you take 52 of the candles, you also have most. You're inability to quantify most beyond 1 more than half is fall down hilarious. I posted the definition for you (which did not say more than half for a reason) and you still don't get it.

PSEUDO-Conservative Reaganists like you don't use that term. This is just more of your IGNORANCE of the definition of Conservatism. I guess I have to continually ram it into your dense, Reaganist head, that Conservative means CONSERVING America's values, principles, and culture, with a strong concern for NATIONAL SECURITY, which your stupid, Reaganist, PSEUDO-Conservatism actually endangers by depriving govt of the funds it needs to secure the nation.

Again junior, Reagan built the largest, most powerful military in U.S. history. You continue to illustrate your ignorance for the world. It's amazing how much you don't know about the Reagan-era. It's almost like you weren't around then...

And no matter how many times you desperately use the word "deny" to support your false narrative, it doesn't change the fact that we have more than enough money to fund our entire military in full even with the lowest taxes in U.S. history. It would just require that the money go to the Constitutional responsibilities of the federal government (defense) and not to the unconstitutional monstrosities (entitlements) which cost over $1 trillion per year.

You also seem to be unaware than many people who have less, DO NOT ENVY those who have more, and "more" is a subjective thing. I may not have nearly as much money as Bill Gates for instance, but I may have far "more" than him in my ability to play hundreds of songs and tunes on 4 different musical instrument, all on a professional level (guitar, violin/fiddle, mandolin, harmonica). Bill Gates may NEVER "have" that for all of his life, and may never be able to have that, no matter how much money he may "have."

Well, that's the way normal people view it. But asshat, envious little Dumbocrats like you hate people with more money. It's sad. It's pathetic. But it's reality. That's why you're screaming "tax the rich more" while ignoring the 47% of this nation which pay no taxes and are along for a free ride.

You know who the dumbest people in this forum are ? It is those who try to refute a post, and the post they try to refute, refutes them. Right now, right here, THAT'S YOU. Pheeeeww!! The $330/hr is 2013 dollars transposed from $150.hour from 1985, by the BLS inflation calculator. I explained this before AND gave you the BLS link to the inflation calculator. SO you have no excuse to now be tumbling in here like a complete idiot and not knowing this. I also told you my workers did not work full time, so why are you bringing that into the discussion other than to try to divert, distract, confuse the issue. Nice try.

You claimed you "paid" those people "$330 per hour". That was completely disingenuous and you know it. You lied. You got caught lying. You could have said "I paid them a one time 15% commission on a one time $1,000 job". But like the sad little inferior Dumbocrat that you are, you felt the need to attempt to act like the BMOC (you failed). When you say "per hour" that implies a continued employment status. Not one hour of work one time.

Now you're pissed off because I am able to articulate you're lies in a way where you left with no real way of defending them. Sorry junior.

Your anger is overflowing and (HA HA I have to laugh right here), it completely betrays your attempt to look credible. Really, all you're doing here is blowing off steam because you know you have had your ass handed to you, and you just cant handle that.

What "anger"? You're the one in a tizzy. You're the one parroting my words back to me because you're incapable of making an intelligent argument. I've told you that you've had your ass handed to you and you couldn't even come up with a synonym! You literally parroted my words word-for-word.

No need to go any further with this fiasco. Everything I've said is clear to the readers. You may babble on if you wish. I see no point in dignifying your fiasco here any further by continuing to respond to it.

We've been over this junior. You've said this three times now - and yet you keep coming back because like all Dumbocrats, it infuriates you when people see the truth instead of your lies.

 

[P@triot]

I ignored that guy for a reason. If you're gonna make me read his posts, at least comment on what you're quoting, please.

I think the point is that the Guy's opinions on this topic are clearly facist. But yeah you're right, putting him on ignore is probably the best way to deal with guys like him.

Something akin to hiding under the desk to escape the truth, because it make you uncomfortable to have to put forth lies like >> "the Guy's opinions on this topic are clearly facist".....which is clearly ludicrous, and shows an ignorance of those opinions.

NO, the best way to deal with me is to do what I advised. To read the list of books I recommended, so you'll have the knowledge to know what I'm talking about, instead of babbling through the thread, in ignorance.

You're an angry little man with inferiority issues like Adolf as well. Creepy.

 

[protectionist]

I think the point is that the Guy's opinions on this topic are clearly facist. But yeah you're right, putting him on ignore is probably the best way to deal with guys like him.

Something akin to hiding under the desk to escape the truth, because it make you uncomfortable to have to put forth lies like >> "the Guy's opinions on this topic are clearly facist".....which is clearly ludicrous, and shows an ignorance of those opinions.

NO, the best way to deal with me is to do what I advised. To read the list of books I recommended, so you'll have the knowledge to know what I'm talking about, instead of babbling through the thread, in ignorance.

You're an angry little man with inferiority issues like Adolf as well. Creepy.

What a coincidence! I was thinking the same thing about you (and the dolts who thanked you for this phony post).

 

[protectionist]

You've said this three times now - and yet you keep coming back because like all Dumbocrats, it infuriates you when people see the truth instead of your lies.

It's already been clearly demonstrated that you just don't have the knowledge or debating skills to compete with me. I've handed you your ass in every post you've posted, if you didn't kick your own ass by talking like an idiot on a number of things (the BLS inflation calculator, the Mexican invasion, Islamization, Conservatism, etc)

Pretending that another poster is lying , when all the time YOU ARE, doesn't do you any good. All it does is wreck any chance you ever had for having an ounce of credibility in this forum.. And just because 2 or 3 assclowns back you up, sorry, that doesn't help. Anybody can get a couple of airheads to do that, if they don't like the guy you're debating.

So you can post all the long-winded, misinformation posts you like. Like when you pretend that I'm trying to weasel out of support for the ACA. I'm not trying weasel out of that. I SUPPORT IT. I've said that all along. And that you should too. And you know I'm not trying to weasel out of anything. You just go on and on making things up. Lying and lying. Nah! I'm not going to participate with that. No need. I've already exposed you for the empty box you are.

You want to show you've got something for this forum ? Wanna show you're ready to talk ? I'll challenge you. Want to take my Islamization Quiz, and show how much you don't know about THAT SUBJECT also ? It's FREE.
Plenty of others have taken it. They didn't hide under their desks.

 

[P@triot]

As I think I told you before, YOU'RE not a conservative. Your low tax policies deprive govt of the $$ it needs to provide NATIONAL SECURITY which is the essence of Conservatism, not your dumbbell protect the rich strategies. As for govt forcing the ACA, I don't agree with that part of it.

Well, first of all, we've already established that thinking is not your strong suit. Second, we've already established that you're an unhinged Dumbocrat who pretends to be a "conservative" because he thinks it will bring him the credibility he can't achieve through intelligent, accurate posts. Third, and finally, I also already established that low taxes provide more than enough money to fully fund defense (and then some). The reason you glossed over the fact (you know - those things thsg you habe none of) I brought up about unconstitutional entitlements costing over $1 trillion is because like all liberals, you're scared to death that the government will stop providing for you.

We have a contractual agreement you dumb asshat. It is legally bound and cannot be broken. Nobody in U.S. history has ever been "dropped" by their insurance as you describe it. This is not surprising as you have illustrated your endless ignorance on many occassions now. What you're inaccurately attempting to describe (poorly, as always) are the situations where the consumer was ignorant (like you) of the limitations on their policies. They were surprised when they learned that there was a cap on their policy, or when a specific instance was not covered, etc.

Don't try to weasel out of your liberal love for big government and the ACA because you've been exposed little man.




Oh my God!!!! And you think you can convince people you are a "conservative"?!? Bwhahahahahah!!!! The only immature, ignorant, buffoons in this world who actually believe that government "cares" about them are full-on libtard Dumbocrats. Holy shit are you one naïve little Dumbocrat lap-dog.




So how can you "support" something that isn't there, stupid? You can't "support" something that doesn't exist. And there is no party nor any politician running on that platform.

You may believe in doing that. You may want to do that. But you can't "support" that because it isn't there to support! Do you see how stupid you are?!?

Ahahahahahaha!!!! Bingo, junior! Ding, Ding, Ding! After you stated "most", I asked you what constitutes most in your mind - 90%, 80%, etc.? Like the buffoon that you are, you ignorant screamed about my "bourgeois schooling" and then said that "most means more than half" (in caps).

Because most can mean anything from 50.00000000001% to 100%, I asked you to clarify your view on most in the context you were using it. You flipped out and further exposed your ignorance. Now you've come full circle and contradicted yourself by acknowledging (and I quote) "Most is a word than can have multiple meanings". So now that we've established your a typical high school drop out, racist, Dumbocrat - would you like to clarify you're idea of "most"?

And after admitting above that it is not just 50.000001%, junior doubles-down on his ignorance and goes right back to it. Hey stupid, if you take 80 of the candles you also have most. If you take 90 of the candles, you also have most. If you take 52 of the candles, you also have most. You're inability to quantify most beyond 1 more than half is fall down hilarious. I posted the definition for you (which did not say more than half for a reason) and you still don't get it.

Again junior, Reagan built the largest, most powerful military in U.S. history. You continue to illustrate your ignorance for the world. It's amazing how much you don't know about the Reagan-era. It's almost like you weren't around then...

And no matter how many times you desperately use the word "deny" to support your false narrative, it doesn't change the fact that we have more than enough money to fund our entire military in full even with the lowest taxes in U.S. history. It would just require that the money go to the Constitutional responsibilities of the federal government (defense) and not to the unconstitutional monstrosities (entitlements) which cost over $1 trillion per year.

Well, that's the way normal people view it. But asshat, envious little Dumbocrats like you hate people with more money. It's sad. It's pathetic. But it's reality. That's why you're screaming "tax the rich more" while ignoring the 47% of this nation which pay no taxes and are along for a free ride.

You claimed you "paid" those people "$330 per hour". That was completely disingenuous and you know it. You lied. You got caught lying. You could have said "I paid them a one time 15% commission on a one time $1,000 job". But like the sad little inferior Dumbocrat that you are, you felt the need to attempt to act like the BMOC (you failed). When you say "per hour" that implies a continued employment status. Not one hour of work one time.

Now you're pissed off because I am able to articulate you're lies in a way where you left with no real way of defending them. Sorry junior.

What "anger"? You're the one in a tizzy. You're the one parroting my words back to me because you're incapable of making an intelligent argument. I've told you that you've had your ass handed to you and you couldn't even come up with a synonym! You literally parroted my words word-for-word.

No need to go any further with this fiasco. Everything I've said is clear to the readers. You may babble on if you wish. I see no point in dignifying your fiasco here any further by continuing to respond to it.

We've been over this junior. You've said this three times now - and yet you keep coming back because like all Dumbocrats, it infuriates you when people see the truth instead of your lies.

It's already been clearly demonstrated that you just don't have the knowledge or debating skills to compete with me. I've handed you your ass in every post you've posted, if you didn't kick your own ass by talking like an idiot on a number of things (the BLS inflation calculator, the Mexican invasion, Islamization, Conservatism, etc)

Pretending that another poster is lying , when all the time YOU ARE, doesn't do you any good. All it does is wreck any chance you ever had for having an ounce of credibility in this forum.. And just because 2 or 3 assclowns back you up, sorry, that doesn't help. Anybody can get a couple of airheads toi do that if they don't lke the guy you're debating.

So you can post all the long-winded, misinformation posts you like. Nah! I'm not going to participate with that. No need. I've already exposed you for the empty box you are.

Want to take my Islamization Quiz and show how much you don't know about THAT SUBJECT also ? It's FREE.

This is now the fourth time you've claimed you will "no longer" debate me (cause I'm kicking your ass severely). And yet you keep coming back because the truth is causing you to have a meltdown.

I've owned you junior. I've illustrated (with facts) your ignorance of Reagan. I've illustrated (with facts) your ignorance of conservatism. Hell, I've even illustrated (with facts) your ignorance of the word "most".

Now come on junior, tell us again how you believe the government "cares" about you and wants you healthy...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well, first of all, we've already established that thinking is not your strong suit. Second, we've already established that you're an unhinged Dumbocrat who pretends to be a "conservative" because he thinks it will bring him the credibility he can't achieve through intelligent, accurate posts. Third, and finally, I also already established that low taxes provide more than enough money to fully fund defense (and then some). The reason you glossed over the fact (you know - those things thsg you habe none of) I brought up about unconstitutional entitlements costing over $1 trillion is because like all liberals, you're scared to death that the government will stop providing for you.

We have a contractual agreement you dumb asshat. It is legally bound and cannot be broken. Nobody in U.S. history has ever been "dropped" by their insurance as you describe it. This is not surprising as you have illustrated your endless ignorance on many occassions now. What you're inaccurately attempting to describe (poorly, as always) are the situations where the consumer was ignorant (like you) of the limitations on their policies. They were surprised when they learned that there was a cap on their policy, or when a specific instance was not covered, etc.

Don't try to weasel out of your liberal love for big government and the ACA because you've been exposed little man.




Oh my God!!!! And you think you can convince people you are a "conservative"?!? Bwhahahahahah!!!! The only immature, ignorant, buffoons in this world who actually believe that government "cares" about them are full-on libtard Dumbocrats. Holy shit are you one naïve little Dumbocrat lap-dog.




So how can you "support" something that isn't there, stupid? You can't "support" something that doesn't exist. And there is no party nor any politician running on that platform.

You may believe in doing that. You may want to do that. But you can't "support" that because it isn't there to support! Do you see how stupid you are?!?

Ahahahahahaha!!!! Bingo, junior! Ding, Ding, Ding! After you stated "most", I asked you what constitutes most in your mind - 90%, 80%, etc.? Like the buffoon that you are, you ignorant screamed about my "bourgeois schooling" and then said that "most means more than half" (in caps).

Because most can mean anything from 50.00000000001% to 100%, I asked you to clarify your view on most in the context you were using it. You flipped out and further exposed your ignorance. Now you've come full circle and contradicted yourself by acknowledging (and I quote) "Most is a word than can have multiple meanings". So now that we've established your a typical high school drop out, racist, Dumbocrat - would you like to clarify you're idea of "most"?

And after admitting above that it is not just 50.000001%, junior doubles-down on his ignorance and goes right back to it. Hey stupid, if you take 80 of the candles you also have most. If you take 90 of the candles, you also have most. If you take 52 of the candles, you also have most. You're inability to quantify most beyond 1 more than half is fall down hilarious. I posted the definition for you (which did not say more than half for a reason) and you still don't get it.

Again junior, Reagan built the largest, most powerful military in U.S. history. You continue to illustrate your ignorance for the world. It's amazing how much you don't know about the Reagan-era. It's almost like you weren't around then...

And no matter how many times you desperately use the word "deny" to support your false narrative, it doesn't change the fact that we have more than enough money to fund our entire military in full even with the lowest taxes in U.S. history. It would just require that the money go to the Constitutional responsibilities of the federal government (defense) and not to the unconstitutional monstrosities (entitlements) which cost over $1 trillion per year.

Well, that's the way normal people view it. But asshat, envious little Dumbocrats like you hate people with more money. It's sad. It's pathetic. But it's reality. That's why you're screaming "tax the rich more" while ignoring the 47% of this nation which pay no taxes and are along for a free ride.

You claimed you "paid" those people "$330 per hour". That was completely disingenuous and you know it. You lied. You got caught lying. You could have said "I paid them a one time 15% commission on a one time $1,000 job". But like the sad little inferior Dumbocrat that you are, you felt the need to attempt to act like the BMOC (you failed). When you say "per hour" that implies a continued employment status. Not one hour of work one time.

Now you're pissed off because I am able to articulate you're lies in a way where you left with no real way of defending them. Sorry junior.

What "anger"? You're the one in a tizzy. You're the one parroting my words back to me because you're incapable of making an intelligent argument. I've told you that you've had your ass handed to you and you couldn't even come up with a synonym! You literally parroted my words word-for-word.



We've been over this junior. You've said this three times now - and yet you keep coming back because like all Dumbocrats, it infuriates you when people see the truth instead of your lies.

It's already been clearly demonstrated that you just don't have the knowledge or debating skills to compete with me. I've handed you your ass in every post you've posted, if you didn't kick your own ass by talking like an idiot on a number of things (the BLS inflation calculator, the Mexican invasion, Islamization, Conservatism, etc)

Pretending that another poster is lying , when all the time YOU ARE, doesn't do you any good. All it does is wreck any chance you ever had for having an ounce of credibility in this forum.. And just because 2 or 3 assclowns back you up, sorry, that doesn't help. Anybody can get a couple of airheads toi do that if they don't lke the guy you're debating.

So you can post all the long-winded, misinformation posts you like. Nah! I'm not going to participate with that. No need. I've already exposed you for the empty box you are.

Want to take my Islamization Quiz and show how much you don't know about THAT SUBJECT also ? It's FREE.

This is now the fourth time you've claimed you will "no longer" debate me (cause I'm kicking your ass severely). And yet you keep coming back because the truth is causing you to have a meltdown.

I've owned you junior. I've illustrated (with facts) your ignorance of Reagan. I've illustrated (with facts) your ignorance of conservatism. Hell, I've even illustrated (with facts) your ignorance of the word "most".

Now come on junior, tell us again how you believe the government "cares" about you and wants you healthy...

I dare him to get into one with me. I wailed on his backside about banning religions from American society, he dares call himself conservative when he has no clue.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Strawman argument. No one would be bothering the US if it wasn't attacking everybody and their uncle. The US should stop acting like the world's policeman, nobody asked the US to do that. No other country openly supports Israel to the extent the US does, there's no sane reason to do so anyways. It would have avoided 9/11...

It is the goal of Muslim jihadists to attain a world-wide caliphate of Muslim domination. This has been going on for 1400 years, and continues today. The US is just a bystander. Since Mo the Pedophile got all this lunacy going, NOBODY in the world is immune to Muslim aggression and imperialism. You'd be bothered, no matter what the US does.

So what do we do, go all Crusader on their asses? I think not. If this was truly the land of the free, if the Constitution really meant something to you, you'd leave innocent Muslims alone to worship in peace. Some of them will no doubt be terrorists or sympathizers, you deal with them without infringing on the rights of other Muslims who want nothing to do with it. There are Christian criminals and Muslim criminals, but we don't go banning each faith for their extremists, do we?

 

[SuMar]

Too many folks throwing pride out the window looking for handouts.

 

[protectionist]

Right now what is one of the MOST wrong things with America, is that we had what is believed to be a terrorist attack on a power station (in San Jose, CA), which, if it had succeeded, could have crippled a very large area of central California, for months or even years. How vulnerable is our US power grid ?????

According to M. Granger Morgan, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University who led a 2012 study by the National Research Council, "..transformers, especially the higher-voltage ones, tend to be very unique. They’re very hard to replace. And they’re very vulnerable.”

The FBI has downplayed this, saying they don't know if it was a terrorist attack, but security experts disagree, and there's lots of evidence that the attackers were sophisticated and skilled in what they were doing, by cutting 911 phone lines, doing pre-attack reconnaisance, not leaving fingerprints, etc.
One thing amazing and disturbing is that this attack occured last April (2013), yet it's getting publicized only now. Looking down a list of hits on the Google box > "san jose power station attack", every article is dated Feb 5 or Deb 6, 2014. Why so long to report on this ?

According to Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), interviewed on the Justice with Judge Jeanine show on Fox News, it's a coverup. He thinks it is the power companies who don't want to be pressured to cut into their profits to pay for added security (badly needed) Together with NERC (North American Energy Reliability Corporation) which is supposed to investigate and analyze the causes of significant power system disturbances in order to help prevent future events, it looks like not enough is being done with regard to such a clear danger in such massive consequence level. NERC also has authority to enforce those standards on power system entities operating in the United States, as well as several provinces in Canada, by way of significant financial penalties for noncompliance, but where is that happening ? On December 17, 2003, President Bush through Homeland Security Presidential Directive HSPD-7 for Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and Protection issued a directive which broadened the definition of infrastructure, in accordance with the Patriot Act, as the physical and virtual systems that are ' so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety.' Yet we get a gunfight attack at the San Jose power station that lasted for 20 minutes, and almost succeeded in shutting down power for months, over a huge area of California.

It is mindblowing to think about what the effects could be of months-long power shutdowns all over the US. It could even partially stop the military from working.

Much more to be said on all this, but I'll let the links and public officials in them do the talking from here on out >>

Justice with Judge Jeanine | Fox News

Justice with Judge Jeanine | Fox News

Justice with Judge Jeanine | Fox News

 

[protectionist]

Strawman argument. No one would be bothering the US if it wasn't attacking everybody and their uncle. The US should stop acting like the world's policeman, nobody asked the US to do that. No other country openly supports Israel to the extent the US does, there's no sane reason to do so anyways. It would have avoided 9/11...

It is the goal of Muslim jihadists to attain a world-wide caliphate of Muslim domination. This has been going on for 1400 years, and continues today. The US is just a bystander. Since Mo the Pedophile got all this lunacy going, NOBODY in the world is immune to Muslim aggression and imperialism. You'd be bothered, no matter what the US does.

So what do we do, go all Crusader on their asses? I think not. If this was truly the land of the free, if the Constitution really meant something to you, you'd leave innocent Muslims alone to worship in peace. Some of them will no doubt be terrorists or sympathizers, you deal with them without infringing on the rights of other Muslims who want nothing to do with it. There are Christian criminals and Muslim criminals, but we don't go banning each faith for their extremists, do we?

What we do is what the Constitution says. That is that the Constitution and the laws of the US are the supreme law of the land. This is a prohibition of supremacism regardless of who or where its coming from, or what religions or ideas they subscribe to.

We also do what our US Codes laws (mentioned in the Supremacy Clause too) tell us. That is that sedition is illegal. And with dozens of Muslim Brotherhood front groups, containing thousands of members, all subscribing to a seditionist doctrine policy (which they never have disavowed), they are clearly in this category.

As for leaving innocent Muslims alone to worship in peace, they can be said to be doing that when their worshipping (or whatever one might call it) does not base itself on a Koran which violates the Constitution with supremacism, violates US sedition law, and violates numerous US laws. Let these innocent Muslims show their innocence, by removing these illegal passages from the Koran, and then there shouldn't be any problem.

BUT.......in 1400 years, not one word of the Koran has ever been changed.

 

[protectionist]

It's already been clearly demonstrated that you just don't have the knowledge or debating skills to compete with me. I've handed you your ass in every post you've posted, if you didn't kick your own ass by talking like an idiot on a number of things (the BLS inflation calculator, the Mexican invasion, Islamization, Conservatism, etc)

Pretending that another poster is lying , when all the time YOU ARE, doesn't do you any good. All it does is wreck any chance you ever had for having an ounce of credibility in this forum.. And just because 2 or 3 assclowns back you up, sorry, that doesn't help. Anybody can get a couple of airheads toi do that if they don't lke the guy you're debating.

So you can post all the long-winded, misinformation posts you like. Nah! I'm not going to participate with that. No need. I've already exposed you for the empty box you are.

Want to take my Islamization Quiz and show how much you don't know about THAT SUBJECT also ? It's FREE.

This is now the fourth time you've claimed you will "no longer" debate me (cause I'm kicking your ass severely). And yet you keep coming back because the truth is causing you to have a meltdown.

I've owned you junior. I've illustrated (with facts) your ignorance of Reagan. I've illustrated (with facts) your ignorance of conservatism. Hell, I've even illustrated (with facts) your ignorance of the word "most".

Now come on junior, tell us again how you believe the government "cares" about you and wants you healthy...

I dare him to get into one with me. I wailed on his backside about banning religions from American society, he dares call himself conservative when he has no clue.

I never said a word about banning religions. YOU said that. You also have no clue what a conservative is. You have a chance to learn now. Go back in the thread and read my posts. Being a Reaganist is not being a conservative.

 

[zeke]

Too many folks throwing pride out the window looking for handouts.

LMAO. Hey, you can have "pride" or you can have "survival". I am sure you would pick pride. Most sane individuals will pick survival. Then they will be proud they survived.

 

[Redfish]

Too many folks throwing pride out the window looking for handouts.

LMAO. Hey, you can have "pride" or you can have "survival". I am sure you would pick pride. Most sane individuals will pick survival. Then they will be proud they survived.

There is a very small % of the people on welfare that are counting on it for survival. A car, Iphone, 60" TV, microwave, and air jordans are not required for survival.

But if its really about "survival" shouldn't food stamps only be allowed to be used for survival supplies? bread, milk, rice, beans, flour, etc? Do you realize that you can buy cavier with food stamps?

 

[JoeB131]

Too many folks throwing pride out the window looking for handouts.

LMAO. Hey, you can have "pride" or you can have "survival". I am sure you would pick pride. Most sane individuals will pick survival. Then they will be proud they survived.

There is a very small % of the people on welfare that are counting on it for survival. A car, Iphone, 60" TV, microwave, and air jordans are not required for survival.

But if its really about "survival" shouldn't food stamps only be allowed to be used for survival supplies? bread, milk, rice, beans, flour, etc? Do you realize that you can buy cavier with food stamps?

Um, yeah, but that would take up your whole monthly alotment.

So would Steak, Lobster and all the other shit that you wingnuts seem to think poor people are using Food Stamps for.

 

[Redfish]

LMAO. Hey, you can have "pride" or you can have "survival". I am sure you would pick pride. Most sane individuals will pick survival. Then they will be proud they survived.

There is a very small % of the people on welfare that are counting on it for survival. A car, Iphone, 60" TV, microwave, and air jordans are not required for survival.

But if its really about "survival" shouldn't food stamps only be allowed to be used for survival supplies? bread, milk, rice, beans, flour, etc? Do you realize that you can buy cavier with food stamps?

Um, yeah, but that would take up your whole monthly alotment.

So would Steak, Lobster and all the other shit that you wingnuts seem to think poor people are using Food Stamps for.

In the real world many are selling their EBT cards at a discount to get money for drugs and booze. then the new owner of the EBT card buys lobster, steak, and cavier because he has a whole stack of cards that he got at 50 cents on the dollar.

The poor guy got his booze and drugs, but no food. What a great system.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So many long ass bloviating posts. The answer is simple....

Liberals

 

[P@triot]

Too many folks throwing pride out the window looking for handouts.

LMAO. Hey, you can have "pride" or you can have "survival". I am sure you would pick pride. Most sane individuals will pick survival. Then they will be proud they survived.

Exactly - any sane person would pick survival. Sadly, Dumbocrats pick "parasite of their fellow citizen via government".

It used to be shameful to mooch off your fellow man. Now the left revels in the scam.

 

[P@triot]

So many long ass bloviating posts. The answer is simple....

Liberals

Amen to that! Now if you would only recognize you are one of them. Admitting you have a problem is the first step.