Comments Posted By SShiell
Displaying 191 To 200 Of 223 Comments
WHAT THE LEFT REALLY WANTS FROM HADITHA
The one thing we cannot do from the right side of the blogosphere is shrink from the spectre of Haditha. Keith Olbermann is a buffoon! Tools like him are a dime a dozen. Being forwarned, we must be forarmed. We know the Left will use Haditha as a blunt tool against everything we say about the war. And for this we must be prepared. Counter them point for point. Whatever we do, we do not hang our heads. We accept the wrong that was done and we move on! The Left has actively tried to derail out efforts in Iraq and the GWOT for the last 3 years to the point of treason and I will be damned if I let them take the wheel now.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 1.06.2006 @ 19:04
THE COURAGE OF ONE'S CONVICTIONS AND WHERE IT'S LACKING
Rick, I'm with you! if I thought the president was trying to establish a dictatorship over this county, I would be armed and out the door in half a heartbeat to man the barricades. But I guess these days we see more talk and little or no action. Nobody it seems is willing to stand up for their beliefs.
I was an Air Force ROTC cadet awaiting graduation and commissioning when the Viet Nam War ended. So it is not surprising that I did not side with the anti-war protestors of that war. But surprisingly one of my own personal heroes was a man who went to prison during this period because of his claim of being a conscientious objector - Muhammed Ali. This man who was the Heavyweight Boxing World Champion surrendered his world title, his fortune and even his personal freedom for something he believed in. I did not agree with him at the time but I honor his stand to this day.
I bring this up on this Memorial Day in order to bring honor to all those who have given the "last full measure" so that men of equal honor such as Muhammed Ali can make the stand that he did.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 29.05.2006 @ 15:34
WHO DO YOU BELIEVE ON GLOBAL WARMING?
Michael Crichton in a Cal Tech Lecture in January 2003 stated, "Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."
Michael Crichton is widely despised in the environmental world. Why? Because he is skeptical of the conclusions of the accepted consensus and the complete and total unwillingness of the consensus to discuss or even contemplate any other conclusions. He does not question the fact of a warming trend. He does not question that man contributes to it. He questions whether man is the only culprit and if there is anything we can legitimately do to reverse the warming.
I have worked as an environmental professional for almost 20 years and in that time I have found the one area of which we know so much but really know so little is how the environment around us works. We can talk and provide documentation all day long regarding temperatures, tides, winds, clouds, O2 and H2O levels, and all of the other things that are evident in the world around us. And yet we can’t, with any real certainty, predict the weather for the next day. With that in mind, how can we predict what is essentially a climatological problem for the next century? And do so to the point where any question or mention of discussion is vilified.
Any student of the earth knows the planet has suffered period when it has been much warmer than it is now and much cooler. These cycles have occurred without the presence of man’s influence. These cycles have been of long and short duration. I do not know whether man’s influence upon the planet is such that we are creating a disaster. I do know that there is at least questions and anomalies that remain unresolved. And I think we should at least take the time to address these questions before we dismantle our economy in order to prevent what may be nothing.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 27.05.2006 @ 09:36
THE MIND BLOGGLING CONSEQUENCES OF BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME
Andy:
For further clarification:
Excerpts From: http://flackrum.blogspot.com/2006/04/911-debunking-norad-conspiracies.html"NORAD was not set up for internal flight threats. It utilized a linking of radar systems encircling US and Canada to track and intercept inbound international flights. Because of this, no alarms went off in NORAD, and no one in NORAD was informed until the FAA reported a hijacking. 5 jets were scrambled within minutes, 2 from MA and 3 from VA. The next two calls from the FAA provided erroneous information."
"The first call occurred at 8:37am EST. AA Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower at 8:46am EST. UA Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower at 9:03am EST."
"NORAD only intercepted one plane over North America in the decade previous to 9/11."
"At that time, rules prohibited intercepts at supersonic speed over the US. With a cloud of jets flying hundreds of miles an hour throughout the area, with NORAD not having a system set up to track internal flights, with the FAA having provided faulty information to NORAD, and pilots having to rely on a mix of visual identification, on-board radar and relayed guidance, it's unfortunate, but understandable that fighters were unable to intercept in time."
As a fighter pilot myself, I can tell you that there were no Rules of Engagement (ROE) describing the shooting down of Hijacked Airliners at that time. The ROE was to simply intercept and make your presence known to the hijackers.
The traffic density within the Boston-New York-Washington corridor is unbelievable. Using raw radar information, it is virtually impossible to selctively identify a specific aircraft without being vectored to that target from a ground or airborne source. When the hijacked aircraft turned off their transponders, the FAA was virually blind to their resultant flight tracts. And when they descended below approximatley 7000 feet above the ground, even their raw radars did not have the capability to properly tract them in order to provide vectoring information to the scrambled military aircraft.
In almost 20 years of flying supersonic fighters, I had occasion to fly supersonic outside specified airspace designed for that purpose only once and that was to respond to an emergency. And even in that case, I had to confirm authorization at least 3 times. Langley is approximatley 150 nautical miles from Washington DC and even at supersonic speeds is over 12 minutes flying time away. And during that time a fighter pilot has to get assistance in determining where the target aircraft is located.
And lastly, I saw the movie and I have to agree with her what "Sweetie" stated that the whole episode is told convincingly in the movie United 93.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 25.05.2006 @ 09:04
TV(Harry):
That is part of the MO of the Left. Create a lie, a baldfaced untruth. Publish it, let it make the rounds, let it be repeated over and over again in sympathetic circles. If a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes accepted as the truth. Then when confronted with the lie, the justification is it becomes true when Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, etc. did not personally contradict it.
So, Andy - when did you stop beating your wife? And if you do not repudiate that statement - does that make it true?
Comment Posted By SShiell On 24.05.2006 @ 13:06
You see and are sickened by films and interviews of people like Jessie MacBeth, who claimed he was a "Special Forces Ranger" and was ordered to kill innocent Iraqi civilians in their homes and in mosques while they were at prayer. But what was even more shocking was the comments that were received on these sites even after he was "outed" as probably not even serving in the military at all. Commentors not only believed his story but actually wanted his story to be true! They wanted to believe the worst or our military and those who led them. I was not so much shocked at this Ranger-Wannabe as I was at the hordes of "Amerika" haters that climbed out of the woodwork to endorse these so-called war crimes.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 23.05.2006 @ 22:56
LEAPIN' LEOPOLD! JASON KEEPS SLASHING AWAY
Tano:
It is a "fact" that the Iranian mandate for Non-Muslims to wear identifying badges is in dispute. But what can't ber denied is this same Iranian parliament passed a law mandating proper Muslim dress.
There is a difference between being required to wear the Star of David or other such badges but the effect will be the same. Consider what would occur in Iran should a Jew be found wearing the mandated Muslim dress? And if you are not wearing the mandate Muslim dress, then you must be infidel and the implication is you will be treated as such.
You think this is no big deal? Tell ya what - I'll buy you plane fare to Teheran and have you dress "appropriately". Then we'll just see how "outrageous" concern for this idea is. Deal?
Comment Posted By SShiell On 22.05.2006 @ 13:44
BUSH BASHING 101: WHEN IN DOUBT, RECYCLE
There seems to be a pattern emerging at the Times. They are so infected with BDS, it is infecting their news stories. How long has it been since we bashed Bush? Headline Something! And it has to support be one of the following themes: 1) Bush Lied; 2) Bush should have known; 3) Bush tortured something; 4) Bush's incompetence. The first one is tied to anything having to do with the events and activities leading to war. The second is for anything 9/11. the third is directly tied to Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. And the last is connected to any misstep in any event anywhere - kind of a catch all category - if we cannot connect him to one of the first 3, we definitely got him here.
Now sit back and wait. When the news cycle deviates for a period away from one of the list, such as recently with the Immigration theme. The Times will suddenly find a story - a sccop - seemingly out of thin air supporting 1 thru 4. And how much of these "scoops" seem to be nothing more than, like this story, nothing more than rehashes of an old story brought out of the cupboard, dusted off, shined up and shown to the world as something bright and shiney new and always bashing Bush.
Wait . . . the cycle is repeating itself again . . . Wanna bet which one? I betcha number 3 is next in the cycle - its been too long since Bush tortured something.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 19.05.2006 @ 04:39
Tano:
Comment Posted By SShiell On 14.05.2006 @ 17:50
And when the "grownups" come back, they will no doubt introduce new policy directives in this country. "Dhimmi" status will be secured in hopes our Muslim brothers will not be too mean to us when the Caliphate is re-established. God forbid we should bow down to our new lords and masters without an established policy directive from the "grownups". Then you, Tano, can kneel down before your new masters and show then how you stood up for their "rights". Just remember those rights and how you showed Rick the error of his ways when your head is lying apart from the rest of your body, your eyes twitching to and fro, and your last thought can be "Boy, I sure showed Rick!"
THE INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY OF THE OPEN BORDERS CROWD
It comes down to this - build the wall, then sort it out! It is our border. We can do what we will along our side of it. If the illegal "aliens" don't like it they can become legal, then become citizens, and then vote against it. Meanwhile they have got nothing but noise - maybe a lot of noise - but it is still nothing but noise to offer.
And if they continue to make noise, watch out for the backlash to come. Americans do not like to see illegals telling them what right they do or do not have. An illegal alien has only one right - the right to due process while he/she is being sent back across the border. Nothing More!
Comment Posted By SShiell On 3.05.2006 @ 18:59
