^_^

LMAO start back tracking. i never once claimed more people in northern cali voted for bush. you just can't deal with real evidence so you make it up as you go along to protect your lil' buddy. did more counties in norther cali go red than blue? yes or no? it is simple. i said yes. you seem to be troubled by that. it is amazing and troubling to believe not everyone in the northern part of cali voted democratic. i know. and still this is north to you

Let it be known the symbol moron thinks that more people voted for George Bush in Northern California. nope but more counties did. you should read closer.

No one refers to 'North Florida' so you have no point. From Wikipedia: Northern California's largest metropolitan area is the San Francisco Bay Area which includes the cities of San Francisco, San Jose and its Silicon Valley suburbs, and Oakland. The California state capital, Sacramento, is also in Northern California. Other cities in the region include Redding at the northern end of the Central Valley, and Eureka on the northern coast. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_California We have some wonderful parting gifts for you after the show. omg the wikipedia yes! offical as could be! let it be known fishtankfrenzy and passion believe this red dot is clearly in norther california No South Florida is south of Orlando. University of South Florida is in OMG Tampa. not according to the gov't http://www.sfrta.fl.gov/ http://www.sfwmd.gov/site/index.php? http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mfl/ they basically consider everything the big ol' lake south "south florida"

If you want to make up MiCal (Middle California) be my guest, but no one would know what the hell you are talking about. yup because most americans are ignorant. oh no wait they aren't. let me guess everything north of west palm beach is north florida because "south florida" generally means wpb, broward, and dade?

So San Jose and the Bay area isnt considered Northern Cali? You sir are a moron. is san jose is the middle or not? it is simple.

San Jose is considered Northern Cali. If you notice your map it would show that San Jose voted democrat. if you want to look at this and say this is in the north and not the middle get your ignorant stones off go ahead. it is in the middle. if you look at this and don't see more red than blue in the norther part of the state then once again, whatever gets your ignorant stones off. and yes san jose, which is not in northern california, did vote democratic which is unlike most northern areas in california. i never said anything but that.

i wonder why they only count to the nearest hundreth

Northern California is full of Liberals. Not very shocking. thats great and all but two problems with that one san jose is in the middle of california and most of the norther california area voted republican as of late but thanks for playing and showing your own ignorance off, let me guess you are republican? figures. :whistle not very shocking.

The House Republicans would be idiotic not to go with this. This a compromise proposal. Follow the lead of your president, dumbasses. mistake 1- you assume they will stick by a guy polling at 29-33% right now. if you didn't realize a lot of these people have to be re-elected this year and they do not want to tie themselves down to a sinking ship. so when the dems run on their only platform of "we hate bush, we aren't bush" these republicans can say the same things. thus taking out a major sticking point the dems have. aside from that they don't have much else. mistake 2- a lot of the non-moderate conservatives do see this as amnesty and they do not want amnesty under any circumstance. thus the politicos will legislate where they see the votes. the house republicans realize they have a monopoly of powers. the house, the senate, the supreme court and oh yeah the presidency. it's not like all of that came by mistake americans voted for that to happen over the span of a handful of elections. and they will use this power to their advantage. the dems would do the same thing.

Didn't Piston fans do this a while back?

so i have to prove things mathematically but you dont? is that simply because the view I present is not the generally accepted one? Well first if I was you I would thank Joe Quinn for supplying you with all that good stuff you mindlessly copy and pasted. Congrats. Then I would cite his site if I was you, plagarism is nasty. However I am sad to see you won't defend ANY of his points that I dis-spell. What happend, when you can't copy and paste a rebuttle you can't think for yourself? Poor Das. And no I don't have to prove it mathematically. I believe what I see. When a plane hits a building what happened at the Pentagon is what happens. Now you...errr... I mean Joe Quinn says that is not what happens. Well prove it. I got the FBI, NSA, videos I have posted, and the rest of the government behind me, and they have all sorts of degrees and what not, Joe Quinn has a blog and you have copy and paste buttons. Oh the 9/11 Commision Report swallowed this too, nasty. A number of engineers are quoted in here and many claims Joe Quinn makes that you haven't plagarized from him yet are addressed in here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=6&c=y

so since I present a different point of view I am now immature, have no education and dont use my brain? nope you just fail to look at the evidence i show you. you say their is no damage on either side of the fuselage hole even though clearly most of the windows are knocked out on either side of the hole, the fact poles, generators, etc on either side of the path of the plane are damaged nor do you acknowledge the fact wings are light weight and fortfied walls have been known to destroy planes on impact. I guess you have the doctorate in physics and are an expert in plane crashes right? nope but i understand the difference between facts and hearsay. The above "opening gambit" is very telling since it delivers hard facts, one after the other, all of which are accurate. It is in this last statement that the twisting begins. The fact that the length of the Pentagon is equivalent to 7.4 757's wing to wing, or that the width of one 757 equals 13.5% of the facade of the Pentagon has no bearing on the actual damage done. Indeed, given the weight and speed of the 757 that is alleged to have impacted the building, the actual damage done to the Pentagon is entirely inconsistent with an aircraft of the size, weight, and speed of a 757. In other words, the argument actually supports the "no-Boeing" theory better than it supports "Flight 77 hit the Pentagon." "Inconsistent Damage"? Dont tell me this, show me math, if you cannot show me the math then its speculation plain and simple Here is the next twist. The Boeing 757 is not simply a 13ft wide cylinder; if it were, then the damage to the Pentagon might be more plausible. The reality, however, is that a Boeing 757 is a 13ft wide, 155 ft long cylinder with a tail fin that extends 45 ft into the air. Add to that the fact that there are two 6 ton steel engines slung under each wing about 6 feet to each side of the cylinder body. The wings extend out on each side for 50ft + making for a total aircraft width of 125 feet, a total length of 155 ft and a maximum height of 45 ft. It comes as no surprise then that this large commercial aircraft weighs in at over 90 tons fully loaded. On take off from Washington Dulles airport, Flight 77 weighed approximately 82 tons. First mistake here is that the tail does not extend 45 feet in the air with the gear retracted so there goes 13 feet right off the top. Tail height is measured this way though as it is mainly needed to check clearance when hangering the aircraft which is generally done with the gear extended as it is easier on the aircraft not to drag it into the hanger on its belly (those size schematics are used for ground maneuvering with obstacles). The actual height of the tail is the height from the top of the fuselage to the tip of the tail which is around 20 some feet and maybe 2 feet thick at its widest point. As too the rest, lest see exactly how much of the airfoil did not leave damage: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread192507/pg1 The above nonsensical argument would have you believe that the only thing to consider is a "13 ft wide cylinder" that just magically lost everything else, or that everything else just "folded up" and flew inside the building plastered to the side of that 13 ft cylinder. Even if the wings could do that, we are still left with the two 6 ton engines that were NOT dropped off on the lawn, and which, together, are as wide as the cylinder body! While it is reasonable to state that the tail of a 757 may not necessarily have punched a hole through the facade of the Pentagon, can we expect to at least see some evidence of the tail having hit the facade? More than that, we must consider the forward momentum of those two, inescapable, 6 TON steel engines that were neither dropped on the lawn, nor were they smashed like pancakes against the side of the "13 ft cylinder." If I struck the facade of the Pentagon with a sledge hammer, is it reasonable that I would be able to cause some observable damage? The outer 6 inches of the facade of the Pentagon is made of soft limestone, yet our author sees no problem with claiming that such a soft surface, when struck by a piece of aircraft weighing SIX TONS and traveling at hundreds of miles per hour, would in no way leave any significant and observable damage. There is over 90 feet of observable damage to the facade, part of the reason that it looks so small is that the pillars are still standing in areas, but these again would have simply cut through the body, wings and even engines as the plane passed through them. At the point the wing sustained damage to the leading edge that passed into the fuel tanks the explosion occurred, but by then the whole nose of the aircraft and the front of the remaining engine would be inside the building. The plane would start to break up from that point on. The only reason that there is ANY wreckage on the lawn is from debris that were ejected from the explosion itself. This is clearly evident in the fact that many rivet holes show no tearing; it is about like hitting that piece of metal from the inside with a hammer really hard. The heads of the rivets would pop right out of the sheet metal without tearing it. Tearing is only evident in pieces that are bent or twisted off the airframe. While the "cylinder body" that our author keeps referring to is indeed 13ft 6in high, he omits the fact that the engines extend 5 feet below the body and over six feet to either side, meaning that, if the aircraft were actually able to successfully fly at just 1 inch above the ground (highly unlikely), the height of the "cylinder body" above the ground would be at least 18 ft 6 inches! Let us repeat that: if a Boeing 757 were actually able to fly at just 1 inch above the ground, the height of the "13 ft cylinder body" would be at least 18 feet 6 inches! Now, add to that the fact that the plane also includes those two bothersome 6 TON engines, AND a tail fin that protrudes 25 feet above the top of the cylinder body making for a total aircraft height of just less than 40 feet with wheels up. Obviously then, we can reasonably expect that the damage to the facade of the Pentagon would have extended up to this height IF it was a 757 that hit the building. The author here fails to take into account wing flexing. When the engines contact the ground the body is going to be either on the ground or substantially less then the normal 5 feet higher. This can clearly been seen in this NASA crash test footage just before the planes fuselage hits the ground. http://lisar.larc.nasa.gov/MOVIES/LARGE/LV-1998-00096.mov and once against fortified walls can stand up to the pounding a plane can dish out: http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2677866?htv=12

all the windows on the right side are basically blown out. and once again wings are basically tin foil. but then again you are the one with the doctorate in physics and plane crashes aren't you? you have shown no proof of anything but a plane hitting and have done nothing but troll. get an education and don't be afraid to use your brain or common sense it won't hurt too much. a wall makes an f4 going about 500 mph disappear wings included omgzorz :blink:

explain how the photo you people have posted is very much flawed, with that photo the damage should be further to the right than it is. no its your turn to explain. i know it might be hard to think but try it out. and according to the model it shouldn't be. the wingspan ran and ended before the jut in the building like the picture shows. and it also extends as far left as the model shows.

there is zero. then explain how a fuselage 13 feet wide made a hole over 30 feet wide. look at the pic i told you to look at. the serious damage from just before the jut on the right side all the way to the gap in windows on the left side is there. look at the bottom left of the hole something clipped the bottom of that building. the picture represented the model.

ON THE BUILDING. once more. you really are slow the fuselage is about 13 feet wide the hole made was upwards of 35 feet wide this doesn't take a scientist wings are light weight tinfoil flaps how much damage do you think they will do to walls built to protect against this?

there is no wing damage anywhere. then what hit the generator? then what knocked down all the tress? then what knocked down all the lightpoles? use common sense.

so where is the plane? in pieces look at the debris shedding up and over the pentagon as soon as it hit. the thing slammed into a building built to withstand attacks it got torn to shred. i don't know if you've notice lately but planes are not made of heavy duty stuff their skin is rather light weight and not all that durable or thick. that small a hole you do realize the pentagon is pretty big don't you? the hole was as wide as about 2.5- 3 fire engine trucks it seems nose to bumper in that picture. that is a good 30-40 feet wide. the main body of the aircraft is not all that wide. infact the main body is less than 13 feet wide. simply disappear. see pics above There should be damage that is wider caused by the wings. Its not there. are not all the light poles knocked down? how many trees do you see still standing in the lawn in the path? is the generator off to the right side not damaged? you need a new pair of glasses. not to mention you won't find an intact window on either side more evidence sorry down in texas some guys can't take stuff for face value.

no worries there is no way what he proposed last night will pass the house. the republicans in the house will not bend. they consider what bush outlines last night as amnesty.

2) Where are the wings? question http://www.myconfinedspace.com/2006/04/09/...pentagon-image/ that is a hi-res pic. no you can't see the wings however notice the generator in the right foreground that has been damaged. also notice the fact all light poles have been knocked over and portable ones have been brought in.

Conspiracy Theorists Baffled By Pentagon Crash Video

However, until now, Bush has not done a thing to fix the border security problem. I guess only now is the public outrage loud enough for him to hear in the White House. Why do you feel the need to talk out of your ass? 4,000 new border patrol agents have been hired under Bush significantly increasing it's size and capabilities, and this was all before the crap which has been going on in recent months. i found this interesting: Bush budget scraps 9,790 border patrol agents President uses law's escape clause to drop funding for new homeland security force Michael Hedges, Houston Chronicle Wednesday, February 9, 2005 Bush's Budget Washington -- The law signed by President Bush less than two months ago to add thousands of border patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border has crashed into the reality of Bush's austere federal budget proposal, officials said Tuesday. Officially approved by Bush on Dec. 17 after extensive bickering in Congress, the National Intelligence Reform Act included the requirement to add 10,000 border patrol agents in the five years beginning with 2006. Roughly 80 percent of the agents were to patrol the southern U.S. border from Texas to California, along which thousands of people cross into the United States illegally every year. But Bush's proposed 2006 budget, revealed Monday, funds only 210 new border agents. The shrunken increase reflects the lack of money for an army of border guards and the capacity to train them, officials said. Retired Adm. James Loy, acting head of the Department of Homeland Security until nominee Michael Chertoff takes over, said funding only 210 new agents was a "recognition that we need to balance those things as we go on down the road with other priorities." The White House referred questions about the border agents to the Homeland Security Department. The law signed by Bush had a caveat that went virtually unreported at the time. A summary, published by the Senate Government Affairs Committee, required the government to increase the number of border patrol agents by at least 2,000 per year, "subject to available appropriations." Democrats were unhappy that the proposed budget used the escape clause so soon after the president approved the huge boost in border agents. "We know we must do more to shore up security along our borders," said Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, top Democrat on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. "The president's budget does not even attempt to meet this challenge." Some Republicans also were displeased. "This is an area of homeland security that needs to be ramped up in order to increase surveillance and patrols of our nation's vast and often remote borders," said Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. A Jan. 24 letter signed by leading Republican lawmakers implored the president to fully fund the new law "in order to secure our borders against infiltration by terrorists." The lead signer was Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a leader of GOP efforts to toughen immigration laws and anti-terrorism statutes. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGOKB837T1.DTL i would like it if you would show proof of these additional troops you speak of. because last year the border issue didn't seem to bother him.

By Anna Driver NEW YORK (Reuters) - BellSouth Corp. and AT&T Inc. were named in a $200 billion lawsuit on Tuesday alleging that telecommunications companies violated privacy rights by turning over customer phone records for use in a U.S. government call-tracking program to detect terrorist plots. BellSouth and AT&T were added to the lawsuit seeking class-action status that was initially filed against Verizon Communications Inc. in U.S. District Court in Manhattan on Friday. USA Today reported last week that BellSouth, AT&T and Verizon had turned over tens of millions of consumers' telephone records to the National Security Agency (NSA) so it could analyze call patterns. "We're outraged at the actions of the NSA, the administration and the phone companies," Bruce Afran, a public interest lawyer from New Jersey, said at a news conference. He added that he wanted the companies to understand the massive financial exposure they had on this issue. President Bush defended intelligence programs that have raised concerns the government is spying on Americans, telling reporters at a White House press conference Tuesday that his administration was obliged to "connect dots" to protect citizens after the September 11, 2001 attacks. The amended lawsuit, filed on behalf of 26 plaintiffs in 18 states, seeks damages for the estimated 200 million customers of all three companies. The New York Times reported in December that the NSA was eavesdropping inside the United States without warrants on the international phone calls and e-mails of terrorism suspects sparked an uproar. The USA Today report, if confirmed, means the agency's domestic program has been on a much wider scale than is generally believed. The NSA is charged with the surveillance of foreign communications and protecting U.S. government communications. Verizon said in a statement that is would not confirm or deny whether it has any relationship to the NSA program but that it did not provide the agency with customer records for call data. BellSouth on Monday denied turning over customer telephone records to the NSA on a large scale and said it did not have a contract with the agency. "Our statement speaks for itself it's clear we've had no association with the NSA, so any lawsuit would be moot," BellSouth spokesman Jeff Battcher said, referring to the statement on Monday. A spokesman for AT&T declined to comment on the lawsuit, and cited an e-mail statement from the company saying it has not given customer information to law enforcement authorities or government agencies without legal authorization. (Additional reporting by Sinead Carew) http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle....&archived=False

the face the guy makes when he realizes what is going on is priceless

Don't dig yourself a hole, eyebrow. You're basically calling my entire family illegal, even though we've been paying taxes, voting, and contributing to the economy and society for over 100 years. if they are here legally and gained entrance legally then they are here legally. if they came past the border and never bothered to become naturalized then they are illegal. my point is what was legal in the past was legal then and all the people who came through legally in the past are legal citizens. but what was legal then is not legal now thus people trying the same thing now are not deemed legal. it would be wrong to look back and deem people who were legal at one point illegals. but we can't use the laws of the past, which are different now, to deem someone who crosses now legal or illegal, we need to use the laws of today.