- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: MIT Professor--Syrian Chemical Attack Was Staged
Posted on 4/17/17 at 11:25 am to WildTchoupitoulas
Posted on 4/17/17 at 11:25 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
A Democratically controlled Congress and executive could NEVER have gotten this bill passed the Republicans.
Interestingly, a democratic controlled congress and president didn't repeal it.
In fact. They expanded it
Just sayin
2
Posted on 4/17/17 at 11:27 am to SirWinston
quote:
Motives are important and Assad had no motive.
What were his motives the other times he's used them?
Posted on 4/17/17 at 11:33 am to Decatur
quote:Poor Tulsi.
Surprised Tulsi Gabbard hasn't cited him yet.
Do you hate her because she's a woman, or is it because you hate Hindus?
Posted on 4/17/17 at 11:34 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
I'll trust our military commanders to give POTUS the relevant information and for him to act appropriately, as the COTUS gives him the authority to do, over Congress any day
Exactly. There is a reason he is named Commander in Chief.
Posted on 4/17/17 at 11:42 am to Errerrerrwere
quote:
I'll trust our military commanders to give POTUS the relevant information and for him to act appropriately, as the COTUS gives him the authority to do, over Congress any day
quote:
Exactly. There is a reason he is named Commander in Chief.
How would you explain the Iraq debacle?
-
Postol has bedeviled Washington for years. He first came into (public) prominence after the Gulf War, when he wrote an expose on the failures of the Patriot anti-missile system. Then President Bush had repeated Ratheyons claims that 98% of the interceptors hit their targets, when the true number, as Postol found, was somewhere between 0 and 8 percent.
Postol is good at what he does, and his expose on this Sarin attack is pretty damning.
Posted on 4/17/17 at 11:54 am to ShortyRob
quote:It's almost as if they're all operating off the same agenda. Weird, huh?
A Democratically controlled Congress and executive could NEVER have gotten this bill passed the Republicans.
Interestingly, a democratic controlled congress and president didn't repeal it.
In fact. They expanded it
Just sayin
Posted on 4/17/17 at 11:57 am to I B Freeman
"wag the dog"
Posted on 4/17/17 at 11:58 am to Lima Whiskey
quote:Here is the problem: We've seen Patriots work in combat.
when the true number, as Postol found, was somewhere between 0 and 8 percent.
Right?
Does "0-8%" sound anywhere close to correct based on witnessed performance?
This post was edited on 4/17/17 at 12:00 pm
Posted on 4/17/17 at 11:58 am to I B Freeman
quote:
Lots of independent and respectable people coming out saying this.
So now this board respects the "elite academia" views? I swear, the mental gymnastics on here are first class.
Posted on 4/17/17 at 12:03 pm to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin,
1. No evidence. just the words indicating. It also says that the indications are that the rebels used sarin gas. (Keep this in mind)
quote:
"Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions
What exactly is a concrete suspicion?
quote:
concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated,"
First they say the rebels used sarin gas, then they say they have no proof that any gas was used going by how the victims were treated.
This reports contradicts itself in almost every sentence. It doesn't look like they have any clue as to what happened. But, I will tell you this....Obama thought Assad used gas on his own people.
Posted on 4/17/17 at 12:07 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Interestingly, a democratic controlled congress and president didn't repeal it.
Of course they didn't, they want to use it against their political opposition.
quote:
In fact. They expanded it
Exactly. The Republicans were morons for putting it through. It was only a matter of time before the Democrats used it against them.
AGAIN, the same will happen with the new Senate rules. The Republicans will be crying when the new rules are used against them. But they won't learn.
Posted on 4/17/17 at 12:10 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
It was the Republican party that came up with the Patriot Act, under which the Democrats were spying on Americans - and Republicans specifically. I predicted the Republicans would regret sending this bill to Bush, and that the Democrats would use it against them politically.
So the Democrats take a bill that was intended on stopping terrorism, and use it for their personal, political fight and you think it is a great idea....since it was done to Republicans? Wow.
quote:
Similarly with the change in Senate rules, I predict that will come back and bite the Republicans in the arse when they are the minority in the Senate.
Sure. Since you and other liberals seem ok with corrupting the intent of laws, I'm sure the Dems will use it for their benefit.
Posted on 4/17/17 at 12:11 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
It was the Republican party that came up with the Patriot Act, under which the Democrats were spying on Americans - and Republicans specifically. I predicted the Republicans would regret sending this bill to Bush, and that the Democrats would use it against them politically. Similarly with the change in Senate rules, I predict that will come back and bite the Republicans in the arse when they are the minority in the Senate.
At least you are intellectually honest enough to admit that the Democrats are the ones scummy enough to abuse the Patriot Act for the purpose of destroying their political enemies. That law is intended to keep us safer from Muslim terrorist attacks, not to be used by a Democrat Party Gestapo.
I am now against the Patriot Act. I say repeal it. If that increases the chances of a Big Democrat City being attacked by domestic Muslim terrorists, I'll accept that risk.
As for changing the Senate rules to gain a political advantage, only a fool would believe that the Dems would never do that, except in retaliation.
This post was edited on 4/17/17 at 12:20 pm
Posted on 4/17/17 at 12:14 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:That already happened. Dems changed the rules. Dems are crying.
The Republicans will be crying when the new rules are used against them
The environment is poisonous. It is not good. It is not helpful. But it will get worse before it gets better.
Posted on 4/17/17 at 12:54 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
First they say the rebels used sarin gas, then they say they have no proof that any gas was used going by how the victims were treated.
You didn't quote this part:
"The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte."
Posted on 4/17/17 at 3:32 pm to I B Freeman
Syria Gas Attack All the Hallmarks of a False Flag
Published on Apr 17, 2017
On this edition of The Geopolitical Report, we look into the alleged gas attack used as a pretext to attack Syria. Despite a lack of evidence Syria had anything to do with the attack, the Trump administration and the propaganda media in the United States told the American people both Syria and Russia are responsible. From ambassador Nikki Haley's theatrical performance before the United Nations Security Council to Russian President Vladimir Putin's assertion the attack was a false flag, we examine different aspects and put them into the context of a previous sarin gas attack in Ghouta, Syria, an attack attributed to so-called rebel groups fighting to overthrow Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and his government.
View the Vid
Posted on 4/17/17 at 3:41 pm to TX Tiger
quote:
It's almost as if they're all operating off the same agenda. Weird, huh?
You keep thinking you've got gotchas but sadly, you are just making a fool of yourself.
This one isn't particularly complicated. People in power like it when they have power.
This applies to 7 year olds all the way up to congresses. Show me a 7 year old on the playground mad because of some perceived unfair advantage of his opponent and I'll show you a 7 year old only too happy to USE that advantage if it falls in his lap the next week.
He didn't need some all knowing global cabal to cause him to be that way.
Posted on 4/17/17 at 3:41 pm to I B Freeman
Come on Tony. I bet it was the Diaz brothers.
Posted on 4/17/17 at 3:44 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Of course they didn't, they want to use it against their political opposition.
Correct. Sadly. Tx isn't much of a student of human nature.
quote:
Exactly. The Republicans were morons for putting it through. It was only a matter of time before the Democrats used it against them
No disagreement here.
I've said for probably 30 years. "Don't create a government power that you don't want your opponents to have" but I'll be fricked if you can get that through the skull of voters.
quote:Well, I mean. Not for nothing but step 1 of that process had already taken place. For Repubs not to do it at this point would have been painfully stupid because there was no fricking way Democrats were EVER going to let Repubs filibuster a SC nominee going forward even if the Repubs folded this time.
AGAIN, the same will happen with the new Senate rules. The Republicans will be crying when the new rules are used against them
Posted on 4/17/17 at 3:57 pm to Errerrerrwere
quote:
Exactly. There is a reason he is named Commander in Chief.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. The President, meanwhile, derives the power to direct the military after a Congressional declaration of war from Article II, Section 2, which names the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces."
- wiki
The Constitution requires the president to consult with the Congress. The Framers clearly wanted states of war decided by the Congress after proper debate. Further, the Framers put the Congress closest to the people by requiring Congressmen to stand for election every two years.
Of course for that to be effective the citizens must retain their virtue, which has been in short supply for a long time.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News