Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (67111)	9/17/2005 12:01:46 PM
From: Richnorth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Worldnetdaily posts are very pro-Jews and very biased. However, that is not surprising at all since many Jews own lots of newspapers and other media these days and, rightly or wrongly, I suspect they practise cahootery. Besides owning a huge segment of mass media, many Jews also own many big businesses and/or hold high political office, in America and elsewhere. As a consequence, the Jewish Lobby in America has become so strong and influential that many people believe the Jews are now ruling the world by proxy. Dr. Mahathir, former Prime Minister of Malaysia, bluntly said this to Bush a couple of years ago. Bush, as naive and superficial as he has always been, was incredulous and rejected it outright. This was understandable since he (Bush) believes that he, and not the Jews, is in charge. Someone once said, "From something bad something good always comes...." To me, this applies well to the New Orleans Disaster. Since Bush has to divert funds towards the reconstruction in New Orleans and other affected areas, he is forced to cut back on foreign operations and ambitions. Also, many underprivileged blacks will benefit directly or indirectly from the allocations of funds, if all goes well.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (67111)	9/17/2005 12:05:44 PM
From: Richnorth	Respond to of 81568

The New Orleans Disaster in the eyes of an Aussie What's Really Behind the Chaos in New Orleans? Back in the 70's, my wife, baby daughter, and I lived in Goodna, Queensland, a suburb of Brisbane (in Australia). We were young and inexperienced and like most couples our age lived pretty much hand to mouth. It was a struggle to make ends meet. Any savings we had went as a down payment on the home we were buying. Once a week my wife went shopping and bought the food and supplies we would need the following week. Like the Southeastern United States, the area we lived in was subtropical and prone to cyclones (same as hurricanes). One day a cyclone approached our area. It wasn't a big one as cyclones go, so we weren't too concerned. We figured 6-12 hours of high winds and all would be back to normal. Except things didn't go exactly according to plans. The cyclone moved in over top of us and hit up against another pressure front and stopped dead. And there it sat for two days. Not too much wind but oh did it rain. An inch an hour for 48 hours. That's right - we got nearly four feet of rain. Now Brisbane is built on the Brisbane River, not an impressive river as rivers go - only a few feet deep and a hundred feet wide in the western suburbs where we lived. At least during normal times. Four feet of water over several hundred square miles is one hell of a lot of water. Trust me on that one - I've seen it. And all of that water all had to get to the sea via the Brisbane River. During the night, our little Brisbane River rose and rose. The police were magnificent. They woke people up and evacuated thousands of homes during that long night. Only two people drowned in our area - residents of a mobile home park whose trailer was swept away. The police commandeered trucks and backed them up to the local grocery store and loaded all the food and necessities, drove them to high ground and parked them. By mid morning the river was 60 feet deep and three miles wide. We lived on a hill so we weren't submerged. When you walked over the crest of the hill and looked down into the valley where there was once a highway, railroad line, shopping centers, and thousands of homes you were stunned into silence. All you could see was water everywhere. No electric poles, no roof tops, nothing. Everything was under water. We took stock of our situation - it wasn't good. The flood came on our weekly shopping day so the house contained very little food. We had some candles and a flashlight. Nothing else. There was no electricity or water. Fortunately it was warm weather. We were in stunned disbelief. So were our neighbors. However, we decided we had better quickly organize ourselves. We knew we were going to be isolated and without water or power for some time. We started collecting all the rain water we could. Without it we were screwed. We dismantled and reassembled a non-mortared barbecue under our carport. We started collecting all the firewood we could find. We assessed the food situation. Some people had full freezers. We separated what we could eat over the next several days and dug pits and buried the rest.Everyone shared what they had without a single word of what came from whom. Needless to say we survived - and in good shape. The R.A.A.F flew some food supplies in (especially fresh bread that the local prison was baking and fresh, unpasteurized milk from local farmers.) by helicopter. In fact I look back on those days with some fondness. Our carport became the hub of the neighborhood. At night we would just sit around the fire and talk. The thousands of people who were displaced didn't go to refugee camps. They went into the homes of those not flooded - sometimes friends or relatives, often strangers. Nobody forced you to take in another family, everyone just did it. Hundreds of millions of dollars was raised throughout Australia. The relief agencies didn't screw around with the money either. As soon as the water receded in a weeks time, they set up centers in every hamlet. Anyone who was submerged was given an initial $4,000 in CASH to tide them through. More came later. Was there some abuse? A few instances but not many and the there was follow-up to deal with that.. Was there any looting? Virtually none. What does this have to do with New Orleans? Plenty. Why didn't the people in the Superdome make any effort to organize themselves? Why didn't groups of men patrol the restrooms to prevent rapes? We have gone a long way in the past 40 years to creating a dysfunctional society where self reliance, pride in one's self and a sense of right and wrong are no longer esteemed or even valued. We have allowed our government and media to say to people that you are not at fault for what you do. You are victims, little children who can't look after yourselves. We have told our minorities that everything that goes wrong is the result of racism. That you cannot succeed in a racist society. We have told the dysfunctional that we will look after you no matter how egregiously you act. We have excused crime saying that poverty creates crime, when we all instinctively know that it is the crime that creates poverty. We have told young women that it okay to have babies without fathers. There is no stigma attached - in fact if you have a baby we will shower you with money and benefits so you can move out of your parent's house and have even more babies. Even if this guarantees your babies will be raised in poverty. We have told young men that it is okay to father as many children as you can. The government will assume the father's traditional role and look after the mother and babies. And most importantly, we have called morals old fashioned and judgmental. What right does society have to say that something is right or wrong? And what have we gotten for this? (not to mention the $1 trillion we have spent on the poor) Citizens who, at the first sign of trouble, stand around bewildered. You see it on the news. Faces screaming, "Help me!", "Tell me what to do!" God help us. We're reaping what we sowed.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (67111)	9/17/2005 4:10:36 PM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

chinu. you said..."Yes indeed the worldnetdaily posts are crap and I gave you a link for that.".... The problem chinu is that you can not handle the truth or facts because it does not fit your anti USA agenda and anyway you deal in a fantasy world of lies and deception.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (67111)	9/17/2005 8:39:34 PM
From: lorne	Respond to of 81568

chinu. You said...."Yes indeed the worldnetdaily posts are crap and I gave you a link for that.".... Here ya go...is this crap as well...I mean it is from World Net Daily. Does it bother you at all to be proven wrong and confused over and over again? Na I suppose not as you keep doing it over and over again. I like to get news from web sites that post ALL news fairly. Something you should try...it would be a new experience for you and others here. so here is some crap for you to read. Weapons of mass murder September 17, 2005 © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com In announcing his pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, President Bush had this to say: Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly – yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. Weapons of mass murder? "Little Boy" in World War II? "Mustard gas" in World War I? Whatever. Most of the world already knew, then, that Saddam had never had nukes, or the makings thereof, and had destroyed all his chemical and biological weapons, and the makings thereof, immediately after the Gulf War of 1991. Scott Ritter, who was a chief U.N. inspector in Iraq in those years recently had this to say: One of the tragic ironies of the decision to invade Iraq is that the Iraqi WMD declaration required by Security Council Resolution 1441, submitted by Iraq in December 2002, and summarily rejected by Bush and Blair as repackaged falsehoods, now stands as the most accurate compilation of data yet assembled regarding Iraq's WMD programmes ... Saddam Hussein has yet to be contradicted on a single point of substantive fact. Worse still, just weeks before Bush launched his war of aggression, Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, reported to the Security Council that "As of 17 March 2003, the IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq." Not embarrassed at being totally wrong about Iraq – and the IAEA being totally right – President Bush told the U.N. General Assembly this week that: We must send a clear message to the rulers of outlaw regimes that sponsor terror and pursue weapons of mass murder: You will not be allowed to threaten the peace and stability of the world. Bush is essentially alleging that Iran's recent decision to resume certain IAEA safeguarded activities constitutes pursuing "weapons of mass murder." It matters not to Bush that ElBaradei reports that after two years of totally intrusive go-anywhere see-anything inspections, he can find no "indication" that Iran now has or ever has had a nuclear weapons program. Nevertheless, State Department acting spokesman Tom Casey told reporters. It is critical to us that Iran maintain its suspension [on all enrichment-related activities, including uranium conversion], that it maintain its adherence to the Paris Agreement, and that it not take any steps that would be in violation of that. So critical that Bush is attempting to get the Board of Governors of the IAEA to refer the "breaking" of that agreement – to which the IAEA is not a party – to the Security Council for "possible action." Now, the IAEA statute does provide for the Board to refer an egregious breach of an IAEA Safeguards Agreement – such as the diversion of safeguarded materials to a military purpose – to the Security Council for possible action. But ElBaradei has reported no such egregious breach. Furthermore, the Paris Agreement was merely to begin negotiations on a mutually acceptable agreement that will provide "objective guarantees" above and beyond those provided by the IAEA Safeguards regime that "Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes" and "will equally provide firm guarantees" to Iran "on nuclear, technological, and economic cooperation and firm commitments on security issues." Of course, Bush would have you believe that the Brits-French-Germans are negotiating on behalf of the European Union. But a half-dozen E.U. member nations – among them Italy, Spain and Portugal – are openly questioning that presumption. Last March, Iran did offer the Brits-French-Germans a package of "objective guarantees" that included a voluntary "confinement" of Iran's nuclear programs, to include forgoing the reprocessing of spent fuel and the production of plutonium. The Brits-French-Germans completely ignored the Iranian offer. So, four months later, the Iranians alerted the IAEA it intended to resume uranium conversion – subject to IAEA, oversight, of course. A week later the Brits-French-Germans finally made their offer – which was predicated on Iran's "making a binding commitment not to pursue fuel cycle activities other than the construction and operation of light water power and research reactors." No wonder the Non-Aligned Movement – which includes India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, as well as Russia and China – has officially declared their serious opposition to such discriminatory treatment of Iran by the IAEA and to the threats to "refer" to the Security Council Iran's refusal to give up its inalienable rights under the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. worldnetdaily.com -------------------------------------------------------------- Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico.