So this is your country of brotherly love, eh?
This is your true nature. This is the real face of america and
Thieving from each other, especially in times of natural disaster, urban
mining, even killing for no reason. That is - when you're not spying on
By the way, how are your guns protecting your electronic privacy?
Your privacy is being stolen from you by your gov't, and your guns and
your right to bear arms are doing exactly nothing to enforce those
George Bush gave you a lasting legacy, didn't he?
So shut up, bend over, and be a nice little Patriot. Uncle Sam wants to
know you better.
Jun 8, 7:08 PM EDT
Looters have come from afar to Okla. after tornado
MOORE, Okla. (AP) -- Authorities say looters have come from as far away
as New York and Virginia to steal from victims of last month's tornado
in Moore, Okla.
The Oklahoman reports (see link below) that police arrested one man from
Elmhurst, N.Y., and two from Virginia on misdemeanor complaints of
stealing copper wire, scrap metal and other items from homes destroyed
by the May 20 tornado. Twenty-four people were killed.
Several Moore residents were also arrested on similar misdemeanor
Residents have filed theft reports for such items as a $50,000 watch, a
$13,000 watch, a $2,000 fountain pen and a $1,300 hunting camera.
Isn't it ironic.
US Border guards stop a semitrailer loaded with food, blankets, diapers
and water from going to Moore, Oklahoma to give those much needed things
away free to the people there.
But no one is stopping looters from going to Moore, Oklahoma to steal
from the people there.
Somehow that seems bass-ackwards to me.
I didn't read the report so based on what you said only, I'd have to
agree with you but if the items were just thrown around and not well
pkgd or organized, perhaps they thought it was a cover up to use the
truck for looting???
No, what I think was the real issue was is that our border crossings are
set up to handle international shipments, not international donations,
and no one on your side of the border really knew what to do with that
truck. There's hundreds of trucks cross into Canada and the USA every
day at the Windsor/Detroit border, and one truck shows up without any
paperwork and says it's delivering disaster relief. They just didn't
know quite how to handle that situation and were concerned that it could
be a "trick" of some sort.
I just didn't want to see all that food go to waste, and I couldn't see
why they couldn't just check random packages on the truck to make sure
it was hauling what they said and not any drugs, guns, illegal aliens or
whatever. I'm sure the church group in Windsor that put that shipment
together would have been fine with some US army truck drivers or any
trucking company in Detroit using it's drivers to haul that trailer down
to Oklahoma. As long as they got the tractor and empty trailer back in
one piece. With your guys in complete control of that truck and it's
cargo, no one on this side of the border is going to be able to pull off
anything shady involving that truck or it's cargo cuz they wouldn't have
any control over what gets given to whom. If the Church group donating
the stuff is fine with that, it's safe to assume there's nothing illegal
Whatever, if the trailer isn't in Oklahoma by now then the food is
probably already spoiled. But, there really should be some way of
getting food and disaster relief across the border quickly and
efficiently because people can't go long without clean water to drink,
and life can be really miserable without food to eat, warm blankets and
Lord knows, diapers.
> ;3076399']The fault cannot be all on the USA.
No, you're right, they probably didn't, and they should have. I'm sure
there would have been plenty of Canadian customs brokers willing to fill
out the necessary forms free of charge, but all that should have been
done before the truck even left Windsor. Doing that while the truck is
sitting at the border is just lousy planning and terrible management.
Speaking of that pipeline, that's another thing. Everyone except the
environmentalists agree that it's a no-brainer, and even the
environmentalists agree that a pipeline is safer then shipping that oil
Canada has enough oil to last us over 400 years so we can sell lots of
it cuz in 400 years there will be different technologies to drive our
cars. Canada has as much oil as Saudi Arabia, but is all mixed with
sand, and it's only within the past 20 years that they've found
efficient ways to process it, and that technology is evolving rapidly.
We've got lots of oil and you guys are buying oil from Venezuela and
Saudi Arabia and even Nigeria now. Shipping Canadian oil to be refined
in the USA and distributed as everything from asphalt to aviation fuel
1. help both of our economies,
2. lessen US independance on oil from politically unstable and
3. reduce the potential for a much greater environmental disaster if
that oil has to be transported over water by boat, and
4. create tens of thousands of jobs during the construction and lots of
long term high paying jobs on both sides of the border.
..and your President has knowledgeable advisors that are telling him as
We need to go ahead and build that pipe line to grow both of our
Right now, and for the past X months, Marathon oil company in Detroit
has been refining Alberta Tar Sands oil that it gets via existing
pipelines. The byproduct of that refining - a mountain of "pet-coke",
is sitting on a vacant lot right beside the Detroit river on the US
side, down-river some distance from the Ambassador Bridge.
There appears to be no plans as to what will become of this looming pile
of shit, it's an environmental distaster happening in slow motion as
rain water runoff carries it into the river.
I've read estimates that up to 30% of a barrel of tar-sands crude is
actually this pet-coke shit.
Extracting oil from the Alberta Tar sands is actually one big massive
environmental cleanup when you think about it. If this low-quality
crude was left somewhere in a shallow pit by a previous industrial
process or company, then what you'd do with it now to remediate the land
and detoxify it is pretty much the same thing that is going on in the
but it is low quality, high sulphur shit.
The most efficient way to deal with it is to process it on-site, and use
steam generated by small nuclear reactors to do it, instead of burning
massive amounts of natural gas.
You want to know the real reason why the XL pipeline wasn't approved by
the US gov't?
The real reason -> because Canada is probably not going to play along
with being a partner in the multi-billion-dollar Lockheed Martin F-35
We've realized that the F-35 is a money-sucking excuse for a fighter
jet, and we've pulled our plans to buy some of these planes at
ridiculous prices as the entire project cost over-runs goes into orbit.
The US doesn't like it when Canada doesn't buy it's "fair share" of
military hardware from US vendors, and retaliation like the XL pipeline
veto is one of the consequences.
Yeah, I was watching a CBC documentary on what's happening with that
fighter, and it's production schedule just keeps getting postponed and
the estimated price on each one keeps going up.
Canada's role in the UN has traditionally been as peace keepers, and for
that we need big heavy slow cargo airplanes to get our troops and
equipment to the 4 corners of the Earth, not supersonic stealth
And, the kinds of war we're engaged in has changed. What good does a
supersonic stealth fighter do if your enemy is fighting a guerilla war
by planting IEDs in the roads and stealing hostages.
I think the NEXT generation of fighter isn't going to be supersonic OR
stealth. It's going to be an unmanned drone because those can be used
for war, search and rescue and border security and lots of different
uses like that. Maybe we should be buying unmanned drones instead.
Assuming someone else pays for and flies the fighter aircraft that
safe passage for the cargo planes..... Do you think you could
have landed a C-130 in Libya before all their air defenses were
dismantled and their own fighter aircraft destroyed?
Seems those fighters were needed recently in places like
Iraq and Libya. Stay tuned for Syria.......
The US military bought more drones than conventional aircraft for
the first time just a year or two ago.
Syria is another mess.
But things in Syria aren't black and white. There is the Alouite (sp?)
clan in Syria that genuinely support Bashir Allasad, and so it's not a
black and white case of getting rid of a universally hated dictator so
that the people can enjoy a better and truly democratic government.
It's a case of picking sides between Syrians that want to see Bashir go
and Syrians that want to see him stay.
As far as the Canadian oil goes, I think it's just a matter of time
before the XL pipeline is built. America needs oil so badly that it was
willing to put up with Hugo Chavez to get it, and Canada has enough to
supply our own needs for another 400 years, so we're swimming in it.
Obama can see for himself that both countries will benefit from building
that pipeline, but he's playing his cards close to his chest because he
knows it's a big deal, and he wants the best deal he can hammer out for
the US. Our government is going to want the best deal it can hammer out
for Canada. But, the pipeline is going to help both economies grow and
so it's a good idea regardless of what side of the border you're looking
at it from. So, it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when we build
I don't see much difference in that respect with what went on in
There were still Libyans that were strong supporters of Kadafi and
like Assad, he had the military on his side. If anything, in the case
of Libya, Kadafi in the last couple of decades, had pretty much
behaved himself internationally. He wasn't sponsoring terrorism
and he even gave up his nuke program under international
supervision. And like Syria, there is no guarantee what will
happen in Libya with Kaddafi gone. Best case it turns into some kind
of stable democracy. Worst case, it spins into Islamic extremist
There was no real reason that I could see for Obama taking
a different position with Syria, than with Libya. Except perhaps
that in the case of Libya, there are European oil interests
involved, so the Europeans were out front, pushing for intervention.
That way, Obama could "lead from behind".
In the case of Syria, there is less downside. Assad is best
buddies with Iran and a big supporter of terrorism. So, even
if the rebels that replace him are worse, it's hard to imagine that
they are going to be a lot worse for the region. And there is
an upside that it could turn out better. That of course is if it's
not too late to do something. Had there been a similar
international operation in Syria, it could have been over by
now. Now, it will take a massive air operation to turn it around.
The alternative view is that since you can't predict what
will happen, just leave it alone and let what happens, happen.
But if we're going to do that, then it was a big mistake for
Obama to say that any use of chemical weapons would
have serious consequences. In reality, this chem weapons
thing is insignificant. By all accounts, only 150 or so peoplee
were killed. That out of 95,000? Makes no sense to me. If
Assad were killling thousands with chemical weapons, then
I can see it. But it's OK to kill 95,000 with rockets, tanks,
airplanes, bombs, etc but if you kill 150 with chemical weapons
it's suddenly a big dea?
What best deal? AFAIK, there is no deal being negotiated. The sole
issue is that environmentalists are blocking it and Obama is
siding with them. And these environmentalists really don't
want that oil in any way, shape or form. You can't just move
the pipeline 10 miles or do another study that will appease
them. They think any fossil fuel is just evil and the fact that
we're just going to be buying it from Venezuela or Saudi Arabia
doesn't register with them.
Also, as far as negotiating, Obama doesn't
even understand the concept. Last year, before the election,
he was caught on an open mike telling Medveydev that "After
the election, I will have more flexibility (on arms control)."
Medveydev told him, "I will tell Vladymer (Putin). Great job
Or look what the dummy did when first came into office.
He cancelled the radar station that was committed to go into
Poland as part of a missle defense system. He cancelled it
because the Russians didn't like it. Obama insulted the
Poles. And what did he negotiate in return from the Russian?
Nothing.... zippo. Anyone with a brain would have played
hardball with the Russians. Like, if you want that radar
cancelled, then get Iran to stop building nukes.
So, sorry, but I don't think the concept of negotiating is even
in Obama's DNA.
I'd say it will take until the 2014 elections, at least. More likely
until 2017 when we get a new president.
I agree 100% with all that you say, except that "even the
environmentalists agree that it's safer to ship oil via pipeline
than by sea". I agree it is indeed safer. But I've yet to hear
one environmentalist say it. To them virtually everything to
do with energy is bad. Even say windmills. When it finally
comes time to put them up somewhere, the environmentalists
are blocking that too....
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.