134a Refrigerant
#891
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11am9s4b21a8ced@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:moFqe.2562$751.2379@newssvr30.news.prodigy.co m...
>
> > Oh, 'integrity' == 'sheeple'.
>
> which is what you tell yourself to justify having none.
I'll tell you what 'integrity' means to me... it means,
when you're shown evidence that your belief system
is wrong, or needs change, you accomodate that
necessary change into your beliefs. Now what does
this say about *your* belief system about Freon,
and the overwhelming evidence that I presented?
I'll give you a clue... it shows you have no integrity.
> > Which is it, Nate? Liberation, or nukedom?
>
> its both.
(SNIP) No, it's not, and your copout is noted. You're
either over there liberating them, or not. You cry about
'young girls'... codswallop. Your true colors show...
very ugly colors too.
>
>
> > Can u see why I think your brain is a mess?
>
> TRANSLATION --> "your thinking is beyond my ability to grasp" :-)
You said it, I didn't.... but of course, it's obvious
that this is true. Why aren't we breathing 100%
Argon, Nate?
> >> and what price was that? what would have been an "acceptable" price?
>
> > We'll never know
>
> what a cop-out! you said the "price was to high". i asked a very
> reasonable question and you throw some -------- out which clearly shows you
> havent even tried to think it through and are simply spouting what youve
> been taught to say to promote your political agenda. PITIFUL!
Ironic, ain't it? The self-referential paragraph, I
mean...
Saddam could still be over there,
I wouldn't care that much. I really would like to
see bin Ladin torched, and Afghanistan cleaned
up... but no, that won't happen now, or for a
long time. Iraq got priority... for no good reason.
> > the Space Cowboy rode
> > in from Dodge City and shot the place up.
>
> dont mess with texas. :-)
Who the f*ck do you think is raking
you over the coals right now? Texas
born and bred, buddy... *with* a
brain, and a heart too.
> > Everyone knows that they *did*
> > exist... Saddam ditched 'em, right before we invaded.
>
> yup! he handed them over to someone as evil as he was and i have no doubt
> that he would have gotten them back (or made more) after the heat was off.
> look at how many chances he was given over the last decade!
And monkees fly out of your ears every
other Wednesday... you seriously think he'd
have given them to Iran? And you think *any*
of his neighbors would give them back?
Fool.
> > If
> > Bush had stopped there and sent the inspectors back,
> > it would have been brilliant
>
> it would have been stupid because it would have done nothing more than start
> another decade like the last one.
I feel pretty good about that decade you're describing...
one of the best on record, as a matter of fact. When did
it all go to ----? Pretty plain!
> > http://www.proudliberal.thinkingpeac...ell-the-truth/
>
> lol.....youre REALLY going to quote something with "proudliberal" in the url
> as a credible source of information? BUWHAHA!
Messenger/message Nate... either deal with the information,
or put your cranium back in your culo. I don't see many
links from you, btw...
__
Steve
..
#892
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11am9s4b21a8ced@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:moFqe.2562$751.2379@newssvr30.news.prodigy.co m...
>
> > Oh, 'integrity' == 'sheeple'.
>
> which is what you tell yourself to justify having none.
I'll tell you what 'integrity' means to me... it means,
when you're shown evidence that your belief system
is wrong, or needs change, you accomodate that
necessary change into your beliefs. Now what does
this say about *your* belief system about Freon,
and the overwhelming evidence that I presented?
I'll give you a clue... it shows you have no integrity.
> > Which is it, Nate? Liberation, or nukedom?
>
> its both.
(SNIP) No, it's not, and your copout is noted. You're
either over there liberating them, or not. You cry about
'young girls'... codswallop. Your true colors show...
very ugly colors too.
>
>
> > Can u see why I think your brain is a mess?
>
> TRANSLATION --> "your thinking is beyond my ability to grasp" :-)
You said it, I didn't.... but of course, it's obvious
that this is true. Why aren't we breathing 100%
Argon, Nate?
> >> and what price was that? what would have been an "acceptable" price?
>
> > We'll never know
>
> what a cop-out! you said the "price was to high". i asked a very
> reasonable question and you throw some -------- out which clearly shows you
> havent even tried to think it through and are simply spouting what youve
> been taught to say to promote your political agenda. PITIFUL!
Ironic, ain't it? The self-referential paragraph, I
mean...
Saddam could still be over there,
I wouldn't care that much. I really would like to
see bin Ladin torched, and Afghanistan cleaned
up... but no, that won't happen now, or for a
long time. Iraq got priority... for no good reason.
> > the Space Cowboy rode
> > in from Dodge City and shot the place up.
>
> dont mess with texas. :-)
Who the f*ck do you think is raking
you over the coals right now? Texas
born and bred, buddy... *with* a
brain, and a heart too.
> > Everyone knows that they *did*
> > exist... Saddam ditched 'em, right before we invaded.
>
> yup! he handed them over to someone as evil as he was and i have no doubt
> that he would have gotten them back (or made more) after the heat was off.
> look at how many chances he was given over the last decade!
And monkees fly out of your ears every
other Wednesday... you seriously think he'd
have given them to Iran? And you think *any*
of his neighbors would give them back?
Fool.
> > If
> > Bush had stopped there and sent the inspectors back,
> > it would have been brilliant
>
> it would have been stupid because it would have done nothing more than start
> another decade like the last one.
I feel pretty good about that decade you're describing...
one of the best on record, as a matter of fact. When did
it all go to ----? Pretty plain!
> > http://www.proudliberal.thinkingpeac...ell-the-truth/
>
> lol.....youre REALLY going to quote something with "proudliberal" in the url
> as a credible source of information? BUWHAHA!
Messenger/message Nate... either deal with the information,
or put your cranium back in your culo. I don't see many
links from you, btw...
__
Steve
..
#893
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11am9s4b21a8ced@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:moFqe.2562$751.2379@newssvr30.news.prodigy.co m...
>
> > Oh, 'integrity' == 'sheeple'.
>
> which is what you tell yourself to justify having none.
I'll tell you what 'integrity' means to me... it means,
when you're shown evidence that your belief system
is wrong, or needs change, you accomodate that
necessary change into your beliefs. Now what does
this say about *your* belief system about Freon,
and the overwhelming evidence that I presented?
I'll give you a clue... it shows you have no integrity.
> > Which is it, Nate? Liberation, or nukedom?
>
> its both.
(SNIP) No, it's not, and your copout is noted. You're
either over there liberating them, or not. You cry about
'young girls'... codswallop. Your true colors show...
very ugly colors too.
>
>
> > Can u see why I think your brain is a mess?
>
> TRANSLATION --> "your thinking is beyond my ability to grasp" :-)
You said it, I didn't.... but of course, it's obvious
that this is true. Why aren't we breathing 100%
Argon, Nate?
> >> and what price was that? what would have been an "acceptable" price?
>
> > We'll never know
>
> what a cop-out! you said the "price was to high". i asked a very
> reasonable question and you throw some -------- out which clearly shows you
> havent even tried to think it through and are simply spouting what youve
> been taught to say to promote your political agenda. PITIFUL!
Ironic, ain't it? The self-referential paragraph, I
mean...
Saddam could still be over there,
I wouldn't care that much. I really would like to
see bin Ladin torched, and Afghanistan cleaned
up... but no, that won't happen now, or for a
long time. Iraq got priority... for no good reason.
> > the Space Cowboy rode
> > in from Dodge City and shot the place up.
>
> dont mess with texas. :-)
Who the f*ck do you think is raking
you over the coals right now? Texas
born and bred, buddy... *with* a
brain, and a heart too.
> > Everyone knows that they *did*
> > exist... Saddam ditched 'em, right before we invaded.
>
> yup! he handed them over to someone as evil as he was and i have no doubt
> that he would have gotten them back (or made more) after the heat was off.
> look at how many chances he was given over the last decade!
And monkees fly out of your ears every
other Wednesday... you seriously think he'd
have given them to Iran? And you think *any*
of his neighbors would give them back?
Fool.
> > If
> > Bush had stopped there and sent the inspectors back,
> > it would have been brilliant
>
> it would have been stupid because it would have done nothing more than start
> another decade like the last one.
I feel pretty good about that decade you're describing...
one of the best on record, as a matter of fact. When did
it all go to ----? Pretty plain!
> > http://www.proudliberal.thinkingpeac...ell-the-truth/
>
> lol.....youre REALLY going to quote something with "proudliberal" in the url
> as a credible source of information? BUWHAHA!
Messenger/message Nate... either deal with the information,
or put your cranium back in your culo. I don't see many
links from you, btw...
__
Steve
..
#894
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11am9blr3vsk063@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Hewqe.2523$751.377@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com ...
>
> > How the hell would you know?
>
> because your own links are nothing more than "could be's".
No they're not...
> > I'll just bet you abide by the law.. when someone's
> > looking, anyway.
>
> personal attacks give you no credibility.
Having no knowledge of science is helping
you... not.
> > You don't get it, and I'm not going to
> > waste much more breath trying to make you
> > get it... after this post, it's ridicule, buddy.
>
> TRANSLATION --> "i have no real response for the links you provided".
Selective reading is a trait we don't share...
if you can't read, how can I hope to change
that?
> > from http://www.bacharach-training.com/methods.htm near the bottom under
> > electronic leak detectors:
> > "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore refrigerants
> > will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures. This means leak detecting
> > on the bottom sides of the piping or components will be more effective in
> > detecting a leak and will save you time."
> >
> > from http://tif.com/manuals/TIFZX1.pdf (operating manual of the electronic
> > leak detector that i personally use)
> > "Be aware that refrigerants are invariably heavier than air and will tend
> > to
> > fall from or collect below actual leak points/sources. Searching below
> > areas of potential leaks is invariably the most effective and reliable way
> > of finding such."
Now you're cutting and pasting with no snip notice...
> > Think about that one... *engineers*, Nate, the
> > ones that design and build the systems
>
> hey einstein, who do you think WROTE THE MANUALS that im quoting? :-)
Well, let's go back to a part you snipped:
<>
Engineers write the dumbed-down tomes
you refer to when repairing your systems... rest assured
that they understand partial pressures, and probabilities
of distribution, much better than you do.
</>
So I guess that I do know who wrote the manuals,
and even took pains to tell you this... and you
didn't notice! Cain't reed!
> those same engineers that you present as being omnipotent wrote the very
> manuals that CLEARLY show that refrigerants FALL due to their weight.
Spoken like a true HVAC altar boy... answer me
this... outside, on a windy day, where do you hold
the leak check probe? BE SPECIFIC.
> > you are only qualified
> > to leak-check.
>
> lol....personal insults (particularly ones based in ignorance) give you NO
> credibility. :-) fact is, you have no idea what im qualified to do, or
> what level of OEM training i have.
It ain't science, I can certify that. Face it...
you're just a tech. Engineers, Nate...
*Eennnnngiiinnneeeersssss*.... you must
bow down before them. You load the
gas they specify.... you hone the cylinder
they designed. Haven't you ever looked up
at the heavens and wondered 'where do all
these wonderful systems I maintain come from'?
They *damn* sure didnt' come from some
unschooled hack tech who won't or doesn't
understand the basic scientific principles
behind gas theory, or thermodynamics.
>
> > you are like the altar-boy,
> > whereas the *engineer* is the Priest
>
> the same engineer that wrote the manuals supporting my statements. :-)
As I said... the Higher Knowlege is not for you.
> > rest assured
> > that they understand partial pressures, and probabilities
> > of distribution, much better than you do.
>
> ....and yet they wrote the manuals supporting my statements. :-)
Higher Knowlege, Nate.... not for you.
> > Well, I can assure you that Freon
> > *mixes* just like all the others.
>
> and a mixed gas becomes even heavier than it was before.
Yes! The atmosphere, as a whole, gets heavier!
I *knew* you could stretch your brain around
this complex idea, if I just kept hammering!
> .....like shooting fish in a barrel with a shotgun. :-)
You forgot to add 'with wet powder and
styrofoam shot, and no trigger finger,
and blind'...
__
Steve
..
#895
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11am9blr3vsk063@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Hewqe.2523$751.377@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com ...
>
> > How the hell would you know?
>
> because your own links are nothing more than "could be's".
No they're not...
> > I'll just bet you abide by the law.. when someone's
> > looking, anyway.
>
> personal attacks give you no credibility.
Having no knowledge of science is helping
you... not.
> > You don't get it, and I'm not going to
> > waste much more breath trying to make you
> > get it... after this post, it's ridicule, buddy.
>
> TRANSLATION --> "i have no real response for the links you provided".
Selective reading is a trait we don't share...
if you can't read, how can I hope to change
that?
> > from http://www.bacharach-training.com/methods.htm near the bottom under
> > electronic leak detectors:
> > "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore refrigerants
> > will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures. This means leak detecting
> > on the bottom sides of the piping or components will be more effective in
> > detecting a leak and will save you time."
> >
> > from http://tif.com/manuals/TIFZX1.pdf (operating manual of the electronic
> > leak detector that i personally use)
> > "Be aware that refrigerants are invariably heavier than air and will tend
> > to
> > fall from or collect below actual leak points/sources. Searching below
> > areas of potential leaks is invariably the most effective and reliable way
> > of finding such."
Now you're cutting and pasting with no snip notice...
> > Think about that one... *engineers*, Nate, the
> > ones that design and build the systems
>
> hey einstein, who do you think WROTE THE MANUALS that im quoting? :-)
Well, let's go back to a part you snipped:
<>
Engineers write the dumbed-down tomes
you refer to when repairing your systems... rest assured
that they understand partial pressures, and probabilities
of distribution, much better than you do.
</>
So I guess that I do know who wrote the manuals,
and even took pains to tell you this... and you
didn't notice! Cain't reed!
> those same engineers that you present as being omnipotent wrote the very
> manuals that CLEARLY show that refrigerants FALL due to their weight.
Spoken like a true HVAC altar boy... answer me
this... outside, on a windy day, where do you hold
the leak check probe? BE SPECIFIC.
> > you are only qualified
> > to leak-check.
>
> lol....personal insults (particularly ones based in ignorance) give you NO
> credibility. :-) fact is, you have no idea what im qualified to do, or
> what level of OEM training i have.
It ain't science, I can certify that. Face it...
you're just a tech. Engineers, Nate...
*Eennnnngiiinnneeeersssss*.... you must
bow down before them. You load the
gas they specify.... you hone the cylinder
they designed. Haven't you ever looked up
at the heavens and wondered 'where do all
these wonderful systems I maintain come from'?
They *damn* sure didnt' come from some
unschooled hack tech who won't or doesn't
understand the basic scientific principles
behind gas theory, or thermodynamics.
>
> > you are like the altar-boy,
> > whereas the *engineer* is the Priest
>
> the same engineer that wrote the manuals supporting my statements. :-)
As I said... the Higher Knowlege is not for you.
> > rest assured
> > that they understand partial pressures, and probabilities
> > of distribution, much better than you do.
>
> ....and yet they wrote the manuals supporting my statements. :-)
Higher Knowlege, Nate.... not for you.
> > Well, I can assure you that Freon
> > *mixes* just like all the others.
>
> and a mixed gas becomes even heavier than it was before.
Yes! The atmosphere, as a whole, gets heavier!
I *knew* you could stretch your brain around
this complex idea, if I just kept hammering!
> .....like shooting fish in a barrel with a shotgun. :-)
You forgot to add 'with wet powder and
styrofoam shot, and no trigger finger,
and blind'...
__
Steve
..
#896
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11am9blr3vsk063@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Hewqe.2523$751.377@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com ...
>
> > How the hell would you know?
>
> because your own links are nothing more than "could be's".
No they're not...
> > I'll just bet you abide by the law.. when someone's
> > looking, anyway.
>
> personal attacks give you no credibility.
Having no knowledge of science is helping
you... not.
> > You don't get it, and I'm not going to
> > waste much more breath trying to make you
> > get it... after this post, it's ridicule, buddy.
>
> TRANSLATION --> "i have no real response for the links you provided".
Selective reading is a trait we don't share...
if you can't read, how can I hope to change
that?
> > from http://www.bacharach-training.com/methods.htm near the bottom under
> > electronic leak detectors:
> > "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore refrigerants
> > will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures. This means leak detecting
> > on the bottom sides of the piping or components will be more effective in
> > detecting a leak and will save you time."
> >
> > from http://tif.com/manuals/TIFZX1.pdf (operating manual of the electronic
> > leak detector that i personally use)
> > "Be aware that refrigerants are invariably heavier than air and will tend
> > to
> > fall from or collect below actual leak points/sources. Searching below
> > areas of potential leaks is invariably the most effective and reliable way
> > of finding such."
Now you're cutting and pasting with no snip notice...
> > Think about that one... *engineers*, Nate, the
> > ones that design and build the systems
>
> hey einstein, who do you think WROTE THE MANUALS that im quoting? :-)
Well, let's go back to a part you snipped:
<>
Engineers write the dumbed-down tomes
you refer to when repairing your systems... rest assured
that they understand partial pressures, and probabilities
of distribution, much better than you do.
</>
So I guess that I do know who wrote the manuals,
and even took pains to tell you this... and you
didn't notice! Cain't reed!
> those same engineers that you present as being omnipotent wrote the very
> manuals that CLEARLY show that refrigerants FALL due to their weight.
Spoken like a true HVAC altar boy... answer me
this... outside, on a windy day, where do you hold
the leak check probe? BE SPECIFIC.
> > you are only qualified
> > to leak-check.
>
> lol....personal insults (particularly ones based in ignorance) give you NO
> credibility. :-) fact is, you have no idea what im qualified to do, or
> what level of OEM training i have.
It ain't science, I can certify that. Face it...
you're just a tech. Engineers, Nate...
*Eennnnngiiinnneeeersssss*.... you must
bow down before them. You load the
gas they specify.... you hone the cylinder
they designed. Haven't you ever looked up
at the heavens and wondered 'where do all
these wonderful systems I maintain come from'?
They *damn* sure didnt' come from some
unschooled hack tech who won't or doesn't
understand the basic scientific principles
behind gas theory, or thermodynamics.
>
> > you are like the altar-boy,
> > whereas the *engineer* is the Priest
>
> the same engineer that wrote the manuals supporting my statements. :-)
As I said... the Higher Knowlege is not for you.
> > rest assured
> > that they understand partial pressures, and probabilities
> > of distribution, much better than you do.
>
> ....and yet they wrote the manuals supporting my statements. :-)
Higher Knowlege, Nate.... not for you.
> > Well, I can assure you that Freon
> > *mixes* just like all the others.
>
> and a mixed gas becomes even heavier than it was before.
Yes! The atmosphere, as a whole, gets heavier!
I *knew* you could stretch your brain around
this complex idea, if I just kept hammering!
> .....like shooting fish in a barrel with a shotgun. :-)
You forgot to add 'with wet powder and
styrofoam shot, and no trigger finger,
and blind'...
__
Steve
..
#897
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11am9blr3vsk063@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Hewqe.2523$751.377@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com ...
>
> > How the hell would you know?
>
> because your own links are nothing more than "could be's".
No they're not...
> > I'll just bet you abide by the law.. when someone's
> > looking, anyway.
>
> personal attacks give you no credibility.
Having no knowledge of science is helping
you... not.
> > You don't get it, and I'm not going to
> > waste much more breath trying to make you
> > get it... after this post, it's ridicule, buddy.
>
> TRANSLATION --> "i have no real response for the links you provided".
Selective reading is a trait we don't share...
if you can't read, how can I hope to change
that?
> > from http://www.bacharach-training.com/methods.htm near the bottom under
> > electronic leak detectors:
> > "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore refrigerants
> > will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures. This means leak detecting
> > on the bottom sides of the piping or components will be more effective in
> > detecting a leak and will save you time."
> >
> > from http://tif.com/manuals/TIFZX1.pdf (operating manual of the electronic
> > leak detector that i personally use)
> > "Be aware that refrigerants are invariably heavier than air and will tend
> > to
> > fall from or collect below actual leak points/sources. Searching below
> > areas of potential leaks is invariably the most effective and reliable way
> > of finding such."
Now you're cutting and pasting with no snip notice...
> > Think about that one... *engineers*, Nate, the
> > ones that design and build the systems
>
> hey einstein, who do you think WROTE THE MANUALS that im quoting? :-)
Well, let's go back to a part you snipped:
<>
Engineers write the dumbed-down tomes
you refer to when repairing your systems... rest assured
that they understand partial pressures, and probabilities
of distribution, much better than you do.
</>
So I guess that I do know who wrote the manuals,
and even took pains to tell you this... and you
didn't notice! Cain't reed!
> those same engineers that you present as being omnipotent wrote the very
> manuals that CLEARLY show that refrigerants FALL due to their weight.
Spoken like a true HVAC altar boy... answer me
this... outside, on a windy day, where do you hold
the leak check probe? BE SPECIFIC.
> > you are only qualified
> > to leak-check.
>
> lol....personal insults (particularly ones based in ignorance) give you NO
> credibility. :-) fact is, you have no idea what im qualified to do, or
> what level of OEM training i have.
It ain't science, I can certify that. Face it...
you're just a tech. Engineers, Nate...
*Eennnnngiiinnneeeersssss*.... you must
bow down before them. You load the
gas they specify.... you hone the cylinder
they designed. Haven't you ever looked up
at the heavens and wondered 'where do all
these wonderful systems I maintain come from'?
They *damn* sure didnt' come from some
unschooled hack tech who won't or doesn't
understand the basic scientific principles
behind gas theory, or thermodynamics.
>
> > you are like the altar-boy,
> > whereas the *engineer* is the Priest
>
> the same engineer that wrote the manuals supporting my statements. :-)
As I said... the Higher Knowlege is not for you.
> > rest assured
> > that they understand partial pressures, and probabilities
> > of distribution, much better than you do.
>
> ....and yet they wrote the manuals supporting my statements. :-)
Higher Knowlege, Nate.... not for you.
> > Well, I can assure you that Freon
> > *mixes* just like all the others.
>
> and a mixed gas becomes even heavier than it was before.
Yes! The atmosphere, as a whole, gets heavier!
I *knew* you could stretch your brain around
this complex idea, if I just kept hammering!
> .....like shooting fish in a barrel with a shotgun. :-)
You forgot to add 'with wet powder and
styrofoam shot, and no trigger finger,
and blind'...
__
Steve
..
#898
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Iraq Was :R134a Refrigerant
And look where the Al Qaida are now. Isn't it neat to see them
screwing with their own, over their new democratic government and are no
longer capable of leading their --------- out side Iraq? Bush done good.
Why you people harp about oil, I never understand. It's always been
easier to buy it from our enemy, rather than produce the oil we have
inside our lower forty eight.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> The Administration desperately wanted an excuse to invade Iraq, so much so
> that on Sept 12, 2001, Bush asked Richard Clarke to double and triple check
> to see if Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, even though everyone else was
> convinced it was Al Qaida. He then took dubious third-hand intelligence and
> formulated a "clear and present danger to the security of the United States"
> scenario, without even trying to verify it. Remember the yellowcake uranium
> that Bush brought up in his SOTU address of 2002? It was shown to be
> completely false.
>
> The brilliance here is that Bush and his people pull a Clintonesque legal
> technicality excuse and say they never "lied," only that the intelligence
> was faulty, and blame Goerge Tenent (who was later decorated by Bush) and
> the CIA. But the concern should be that the CIA freely admitted that much of
> that intelligence was at best questionable and shouldn't be used to make
> policy without firsthand verification; instead the Administration called it
> "irrefutable evidence" and based the whole invasion on it. Of course now,
> they downplay the clear and present danger issue and say they were trying to
> liberate Iraq all along.
>
> The high treason that Steve alluded to was that the person who refuted the
> yellowcake/Niger story was politically avenged by outing his wife, a veteran
> NOC operative at the CIA. The identity of the person or persons in the
> Adminsitration haven't been discovered because the Bush Administration has
> been stonewalling, and the Republicans in Congress will never allow a
> Congressional investigation of this treason, so the special prosecutor
> investigating is forced to hold second-rate journalists in contempt by not
> revealing their sources, while the guy the broke the whole story, a die-hard
> conservative columnist, remains footloose and fancy free.
>
> The media doesn't cover it because they make more money by covering the
> Michael Jackson circus/trial and the Runaway Bride story.
>
> Anyway, anyone who thinks that any president has never lied to his country
> to further his political agenda is a naive fool.
>
> That said, I think Bush has a great idea in turning the about-to-be-closed
> military bases into nuclear power plants. It will help us reduce our
> dependence on foreign oil, and then when the price of oil falls, Saudi
> Arabia won't be able to finance its --------- activities and the world will
> be safer. But I fear that Bush's plan is just talk and he will continue to
> do the bidding of his masters in Big Oil.
screwing with their own, over their new democratic government and are no
longer capable of leading their --------- out side Iraq? Bush done good.
Why you people harp about oil, I never understand. It's always been
easier to buy it from our enemy, rather than produce the oil we have
inside our lower forty eight.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> The Administration desperately wanted an excuse to invade Iraq, so much so
> that on Sept 12, 2001, Bush asked Richard Clarke to double and triple check
> to see if Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, even though everyone else was
> convinced it was Al Qaida. He then took dubious third-hand intelligence and
> formulated a "clear and present danger to the security of the United States"
> scenario, without even trying to verify it. Remember the yellowcake uranium
> that Bush brought up in his SOTU address of 2002? It was shown to be
> completely false.
>
> The brilliance here is that Bush and his people pull a Clintonesque legal
> technicality excuse and say they never "lied," only that the intelligence
> was faulty, and blame Goerge Tenent (who was later decorated by Bush) and
> the CIA. But the concern should be that the CIA freely admitted that much of
> that intelligence was at best questionable and shouldn't be used to make
> policy without firsthand verification; instead the Administration called it
> "irrefutable evidence" and based the whole invasion on it. Of course now,
> they downplay the clear and present danger issue and say they were trying to
> liberate Iraq all along.
>
> The high treason that Steve alluded to was that the person who refuted the
> yellowcake/Niger story was politically avenged by outing his wife, a veteran
> NOC operative at the CIA. The identity of the person or persons in the
> Adminsitration haven't been discovered because the Bush Administration has
> been stonewalling, and the Republicans in Congress will never allow a
> Congressional investigation of this treason, so the special prosecutor
> investigating is forced to hold second-rate journalists in contempt by not
> revealing their sources, while the guy the broke the whole story, a die-hard
> conservative columnist, remains footloose and fancy free.
>
> The media doesn't cover it because they make more money by covering the
> Michael Jackson circus/trial and the Runaway Bride story.
>
> Anyway, anyone who thinks that any president has never lied to his country
> to further his political agenda is a naive fool.
>
> That said, I think Bush has a great idea in turning the about-to-be-closed
> military bases into nuclear power plants. It will help us reduce our
> dependence on foreign oil, and then when the price of oil falls, Saudi
> Arabia won't be able to finance its --------- activities and the world will
> be safer. But I fear that Bush's plan is just talk and he will continue to
> do the bidding of his masters in Big Oil.
#899
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Iraq Was :R134a Refrigerant
And look where the Al Qaida are now. Isn't it neat to see them
screwing with their own, over their new democratic government and are no
longer capable of leading their --------- out side Iraq? Bush done good.
Why you people harp about oil, I never understand. It's always been
easier to buy it from our enemy, rather than produce the oil we have
inside our lower forty eight.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> The Administration desperately wanted an excuse to invade Iraq, so much so
> that on Sept 12, 2001, Bush asked Richard Clarke to double and triple check
> to see if Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, even though everyone else was
> convinced it was Al Qaida. He then took dubious third-hand intelligence and
> formulated a "clear and present danger to the security of the United States"
> scenario, without even trying to verify it. Remember the yellowcake uranium
> that Bush brought up in his SOTU address of 2002? It was shown to be
> completely false.
>
> The brilliance here is that Bush and his people pull a Clintonesque legal
> technicality excuse and say they never "lied," only that the intelligence
> was faulty, and blame Goerge Tenent (who was later decorated by Bush) and
> the CIA. But the concern should be that the CIA freely admitted that much of
> that intelligence was at best questionable and shouldn't be used to make
> policy without firsthand verification; instead the Administration called it
> "irrefutable evidence" and based the whole invasion on it. Of course now,
> they downplay the clear and present danger issue and say they were trying to
> liberate Iraq all along.
>
> The high treason that Steve alluded to was that the person who refuted the
> yellowcake/Niger story was politically avenged by outing his wife, a veteran
> NOC operative at the CIA. The identity of the person or persons in the
> Adminsitration haven't been discovered because the Bush Administration has
> been stonewalling, and the Republicans in Congress will never allow a
> Congressional investigation of this treason, so the special prosecutor
> investigating is forced to hold second-rate journalists in contempt by not
> revealing their sources, while the guy the broke the whole story, a die-hard
> conservative columnist, remains footloose and fancy free.
>
> The media doesn't cover it because they make more money by covering the
> Michael Jackson circus/trial and the Runaway Bride story.
>
> Anyway, anyone who thinks that any president has never lied to his country
> to further his political agenda is a naive fool.
>
> That said, I think Bush has a great idea in turning the about-to-be-closed
> military bases into nuclear power plants. It will help us reduce our
> dependence on foreign oil, and then when the price of oil falls, Saudi
> Arabia won't be able to finance its --------- activities and the world will
> be safer. But I fear that Bush's plan is just talk and he will continue to
> do the bidding of his masters in Big Oil.
screwing with their own, over their new democratic government and are no
longer capable of leading their --------- out side Iraq? Bush done good.
Why you people harp about oil, I never understand. It's always been
easier to buy it from our enemy, rather than produce the oil we have
inside our lower forty eight.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> The Administration desperately wanted an excuse to invade Iraq, so much so
> that on Sept 12, 2001, Bush asked Richard Clarke to double and triple check
> to see if Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, even though everyone else was
> convinced it was Al Qaida. He then took dubious third-hand intelligence and
> formulated a "clear and present danger to the security of the United States"
> scenario, without even trying to verify it. Remember the yellowcake uranium
> that Bush brought up in his SOTU address of 2002? It was shown to be
> completely false.
>
> The brilliance here is that Bush and his people pull a Clintonesque legal
> technicality excuse and say they never "lied," only that the intelligence
> was faulty, and blame Goerge Tenent (who was later decorated by Bush) and
> the CIA. But the concern should be that the CIA freely admitted that much of
> that intelligence was at best questionable and shouldn't be used to make
> policy without firsthand verification; instead the Administration called it
> "irrefutable evidence" and based the whole invasion on it. Of course now,
> they downplay the clear and present danger issue and say they were trying to
> liberate Iraq all along.
>
> The high treason that Steve alluded to was that the person who refuted the
> yellowcake/Niger story was politically avenged by outing his wife, a veteran
> NOC operative at the CIA. The identity of the person or persons in the
> Adminsitration haven't been discovered because the Bush Administration has
> been stonewalling, and the Republicans in Congress will never allow a
> Congressional investigation of this treason, so the special prosecutor
> investigating is forced to hold second-rate journalists in contempt by not
> revealing their sources, while the guy the broke the whole story, a die-hard
> conservative columnist, remains footloose and fancy free.
>
> The media doesn't cover it because they make more money by covering the
> Michael Jackson circus/trial and the Runaway Bride story.
>
> Anyway, anyone who thinks that any president has never lied to his country
> to further his political agenda is a naive fool.
>
> That said, I think Bush has a great idea in turning the about-to-be-closed
> military bases into nuclear power plants. It will help us reduce our
> dependence on foreign oil, and then when the price of oil falls, Saudi
> Arabia won't be able to finance its --------- activities and the world will
> be safer. But I fear that Bush's plan is just talk and he will continue to
> do the bidding of his masters in Big Oil.
#900
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Iraq Was :R134a Refrigerant
And look where the Al Qaida are now. Isn't it neat to see them
screwing with their own, over their new democratic government and are no
longer capable of leading their --------- out side Iraq? Bush done good.
Why you people harp about oil, I never understand. It's always been
easier to buy it from our enemy, rather than produce the oil we have
inside our lower forty eight.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> The Administration desperately wanted an excuse to invade Iraq, so much so
> that on Sept 12, 2001, Bush asked Richard Clarke to double and triple check
> to see if Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, even though everyone else was
> convinced it was Al Qaida. He then took dubious third-hand intelligence and
> formulated a "clear and present danger to the security of the United States"
> scenario, without even trying to verify it. Remember the yellowcake uranium
> that Bush brought up in his SOTU address of 2002? It was shown to be
> completely false.
>
> The brilliance here is that Bush and his people pull a Clintonesque legal
> technicality excuse and say they never "lied," only that the intelligence
> was faulty, and blame Goerge Tenent (who was later decorated by Bush) and
> the CIA. But the concern should be that the CIA freely admitted that much of
> that intelligence was at best questionable and shouldn't be used to make
> policy without firsthand verification; instead the Administration called it
> "irrefutable evidence" and based the whole invasion on it. Of course now,
> they downplay the clear and present danger issue and say they were trying to
> liberate Iraq all along.
>
> The high treason that Steve alluded to was that the person who refuted the
> yellowcake/Niger story was politically avenged by outing his wife, a veteran
> NOC operative at the CIA. The identity of the person or persons in the
> Adminsitration haven't been discovered because the Bush Administration has
> been stonewalling, and the Republicans in Congress will never allow a
> Congressional investigation of this treason, so the special prosecutor
> investigating is forced to hold second-rate journalists in contempt by not
> revealing their sources, while the guy the broke the whole story, a die-hard
> conservative columnist, remains footloose and fancy free.
>
> The media doesn't cover it because they make more money by covering the
> Michael Jackson circus/trial and the Runaway Bride story.
>
> Anyway, anyone who thinks that any president has never lied to his country
> to further his political agenda is a naive fool.
>
> That said, I think Bush has a great idea in turning the about-to-be-closed
> military bases into nuclear power plants. It will help us reduce our
> dependence on foreign oil, and then when the price of oil falls, Saudi
> Arabia won't be able to finance its --------- activities and the world will
> be safer. But I fear that Bush's plan is just talk and he will continue to
> do the bidding of his masters in Big Oil.
screwing with their own, over their new democratic government and are no
longer capable of leading their --------- out side Iraq? Bush done good.
Why you people harp about oil, I never understand. It's always been
easier to buy it from our enemy, rather than produce the oil we have
inside our lower forty eight.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> The Administration desperately wanted an excuse to invade Iraq, so much so
> that on Sept 12, 2001, Bush asked Richard Clarke to double and triple check
> to see if Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, even though everyone else was
> convinced it was Al Qaida. He then took dubious third-hand intelligence and
> formulated a "clear and present danger to the security of the United States"
> scenario, without even trying to verify it. Remember the yellowcake uranium
> that Bush brought up in his SOTU address of 2002? It was shown to be
> completely false.
>
> The brilliance here is that Bush and his people pull a Clintonesque legal
> technicality excuse and say they never "lied," only that the intelligence
> was faulty, and blame Goerge Tenent (who was later decorated by Bush) and
> the CIA. But the concern should be that the CIA freely admitted that much of
> that intelligence was at best questionable and shouldn't be used to make
> policy without firsthand verification; instead the Administration called it
> "irrefutable evidence" and based the whole invasion on it. Of course now,
> they downplay the clear and present danger issue and say they were trying to
> liberate Iraq all along.
>
> The high treason that Steve alluded to was that the person who refuted the
> yellowcake/Niger story was politically avenged by outing his wife, a veteran
> NOC operative at the CIA. The identity of the person or persons in the
> Adminsitration haven't been discovered because the Bush Administration has
> been stonewalling, and the Republicans in Congress will never allow a
> Congressional investigation of this treason, so the special prosecutor
> investigating is forced to hold second-rate journalists in contempt by not
> revealing their sources, while the guy the broke the whole story, a die-hard
> conservative columnist, remains footloose and fancy free.
>
> The media doesn't cover it because they make more money by covering the
> Michael Jackson circus/trial and the Runaway Bride story.
>
> Anyway, anyone who thinks that any president has never lied to his country
> to further his political agenda is a naive fool.
>
> That said, I think Bush has a great idea in turning the about-to-be-closed
> military bases into nuclear power plants. It will help us reduce our
> dependence on foreign oil, and then when the price of oil falls, Saudi
> Arabia won't be able to finance its --------- activities and the world will
> be safer. But I fear that Bush's plan is just talk and he will continue to
> do the bidding of his masters in Big Oil.