Hydrazine is a derivative of ammonia. One of it's uses is to puff styrofoam peanuts, as is my understanding.
en.wikipedia.org...
It's in the news because there was a tankful of it on a spy satellite that was just destroyed by a "surface-to-space" missile because the hyrdazine
could've been dangerous when the satellite entered Earth's atmosphere as it's orbit decayed.
www.cnn.com...#/video/tech/2008/02/21/pentagon.sat.shoot7a.cnn
EDIT to add: Another fine show, by the way. Justin, you really need to upgrade your microphone.
Martin, stop eating your microphone. You're popping your P's!
[edit on 21-2-2008 by Tuning Spork]
ATS.MIX: Above Politics Show 04 , page 1
privacy
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times
Topic started on 21-2-2008 @ 09:01 PM by ATSMIX
ATS MIX:
The AP boys, Martin and Justin, have their first interview with ATS Moderator Harlem Hottie, who reveals the inside scoop on a sinister political plot that the mainstream media is ignoring. Are you brave enough to hear what she has to say? Deny ignorance! ATS Member Dorian Gray wins the trivia challenge for a third time, which forces Justin to dig deep for a harder question. Martin rants about the nationalization of the Northern Rock bank (in the U.K.). Is Hillary Clinton going down in flames? Which ATS member recently made the news in Canada? Listen to Martin and Justin to find out!
PLEASE POST YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS SHOW THREAD ONLY OR GO TO THE ABOVEPOLITICS.COM HOME BELOW
To DOWNLOAD This Program, Put Your Mouse Cursor Over the BLUE SHOW FILE NAME, Then RIGHT CLICK. Slide The Cursor Down To SAVE TARGET AS And Then CLICK .... Now Just Decide WHERE You Want To Download The File To And CLICK SAVE. You Might Also Consider SUBSCRIBING To The Shows Through iTunes Where They Are Downloaded To Your computer Automatically.
VISIT THE ABOVE POLITICS HOME NOW
length: 35:19
file: atsmix_2828.mp3
size: 16559k
feed: atsmix
[edit on 2/21/2008 by Dave Rabbit]
Above Politics Show 04
The AP boys, Martin and Justin, have their first interview with ATS Moderator Harlem Hottie, who reveals the inside scoop on a sinister political plot that the mainstream media is ignoring. Are you brave enough to hear what she has to say? Deny ignorance! ATS Member Dorian Gray wins the trivia challenge for a third time, which forces Justin to dig deep for a harder question. Martin rants about the nationalization of the Northern Rock bank (in the U.K.). Is Hillary Clinton going down in flames? Which ATS member recently made the news in Canada? Listen to Martin and Justin to find out!
PLEASE POST YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS SHOW THREAD ONLY OR GO TO THE ABOVEPOLITICS.COM HOME BELOW
To DOWNLOAD This Program, Put Your Mouse Cursor Over the BLUE SHOW FILE NAME, Then RIGHT CLICK. Slide The Cursor Down To SAVE TARGET AS And Then CLICK .... Now Just Decide WHERE You Want To Download The File To And CLICK SAVE. You Might Also Consider SUBSCRIBING To The Shows Through iTunes Where They Are Downloaded To Your computer Automatically.
VISIT THE ABOVE POLITICS HOME NOW
length: 35:19
file: atsmix_2828.mp3
size: 16559k
feed: atsmix
[edit on 2/21/2008 by Dave Rabbit]
reply posted on 22-2-2008 @ 01:50 AM by xpert11
Good show keep em coming !
The US is certainly at a cross roads in terms of the topics in the AP Show 03 thread and in terms of the integrity of the voting process.
Related Notes
The NZ government owns a part of Air New Zealand and owns 100% of the state-owned enterprise Kiwibank . I wasn't fond of the NZ government decision to bail out Air New Zealand. While Kiwibank has been more successful then myself and others would have picked it hasn't shaken up the market to the degree it supporters claim that it has.
Privatisation is very very unpopular outside of the political right. The National Party has had to abandoned Privatisation along with a host of other policy's for the sake of electability .
Source
The US is certainly at a cross roads in terms of the topics in the AP Show 03 thread and in terms of the integrity of the voting process.
Related Notes
The NZ government owns a part of Air New Zealand and owns 100% of the state-owned enterprise Kiwibank . I wasn't fond of the NZ government decision to bail out Air New Zealand. While Kiwibank has been more successful then myself and others would have picked it hasn't shaken up the market to the degree it supporters claim that it has.
Privatisation is very very unpopular outside of the political right. The National Party has had to abandoned Privatisation along with a host of other policy's for the sake of electability .
In October 2001 the New Zealand Government announced that it would provide Air New Zealand with an $NZ885 million rescue package, and in return would take up 80% ownership. Gary Toomey resigned as CEO the same month.
Source
reply posted on 22-2-2008 @ 12:58 PM by _Johnny_Utah_
I have to take issue…but not with you guys.
While you were interviewing Corrine (sp?), she stated Barack Obama is not a Muslim. While that MAY be true, now, it has NOT always been the case as she made it sound.
“ The Los Angeles Times reported Thursday that Barack Obama’s campaign seems to be modifying its earlier affirmation that 'Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago.'
In a statement to the Times on Wednesday, the campaign offered slightly different wording, saying: 'Obama has never been a practicing Muslim.' The statement added that as a child, Obama had spent time in the neighborhood’s Islamic center.
His former Roman Catholic and Muslim teachers, along with two people who were identified by Obama’s grade-school teacher as childhood friends, say Obama was registered by his family as a Muslim at both of the schools he attended.”
www.humanevents.com...
Why do people like this man? Really? Why? Maybe Senator Watson from Texas can help us out. What do you have to say, Senator?
video.google.com...
I think it speaks volumes. This is a state SENATOR who is a campaign representative! Shouldn’t he know? Shouldn’t he be able to spout off the, oh so long, list of great deeds the man has done? This is a guy who has dedicated his life to politics and it is his job to know what is going on, not only on the state level, but in Washington as well. All he can come up with is, “he inspires.” That’s pathetic! Motivational videos inspire, New Year’s resolutions inspire, trainers at gyms inspire, heck, even roles played by the most ignorant Hollywood actors can inspire! I guess they would be good candidates too?
I did hear some say, “He inspires people to believe in themselves.” He does? From what I see, the drooling legions of supports believe in him and look at him as though he is our SAVIOR in this great time of turmoil. He is only a man…
He is a fantastic speaker and knows how to play a crowd. He knows when to inflect a word here or let another hang there. He knows how to stoke a crowd by emphasizing words which mean nothing. Then, he lets the crowd build and frenzy upon itself.
He is a used car salesman.
He is also a man who refuses to put his hand over his heart and is married to a woman who said she is ashamed of the United States. None of that matters or is justifiable...right?
People don’t want to face the facts there is much unknown about the man, from his MUSLIM upbringing to what he truly believes. They are so enthralled by the man, they find ways to place what they “think” he means or what they “want” him to believe over what they know/don't know.
People are so willing to apologize for the man or ignore truths which will taint the perfect image they have of him. No one is perfect and no one believes in every ideal as you do.
To think anyone person is the savior of the nation, is putting to much faith in them and it extrodinarily dangerous.
It's frightening.
While you were interviewing Corrine (sp?), she stated Barack Obama is not a Muslim. While that MAY be true, now, it has NOT always been the case as she made it sound.
“ The Los Angeles Times reported Thursday that Barack Obama’s campaign seems to be modifying its earlier affirmation that 'Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago.'
In a statement to the Times on Wednesday, the campaign offered slightly different wording, saying: 'Obama has never been a practicing Muslim.' The statement added that as a child, Obama had spent time in the neighborhood’s Islamic center.
His former Roman Catholic and Muslim teachers, along with two people who were identified by Obama’s grade-school teacher as childhood friends, say Obama was registered by his family as a Muslim at both of the schools he attended.”
www.humanevents.com...
Why do people like this man? Really? Why? Maybe Senator Watson from Texas can help us out. What do you have to say, Senator?
video.google.com...
I think it speaks volumes. This is a state SENATOR who is a campaign representative! Shouldn’t he know? Shouldn’t he be able to spout off the, oh so long, list of great deeds the man has done? This is a guy who has dedicated his life to politics and it is his job to know what is going on, not only on the state level, but in Washington as well. All he can come up with is, “he inspires.” That’s pathetic! Motivational videos inspire, New Year’s resolutions inspire, trainers at gyms inspire, heck, even roles played by the most ignorant Hollywood actors can inspire! I guess they would be good candidates too?
I did hear some say, “He inspires people to believe in themselves.” He does? From what I see, the drooling legions of supports believe in him and look at him as though he is our SAVIOR in this great time of turmoil. He is only a man…
He is a fantastic speaker and knows how to play a crowd. He knows when to inflect a word here or let another hang there. He knows how to stoke a crowd by emphasizing words which mean nothing. Then, he lets the crowd build and frenzy upon itself.
He is a used car salesman.
He is also a man who refuses to put his hand over his heart and is married to a woman who said she is ashamed of the United States. None of that matters or is justifiable...right?
People don’t want to face the facts there is much unknown about the man, from his MUSLIM upbringing to what he truly believes. They are so enthralled by the man, they find ways to place what they “think” he means or what they “want” him to believe over what they know/don't know.
People are so willing to apologize for the man or ignore truths which will taint the perfect image they have of him. No one is perfect and no one believes in every ideal as you do.
To think anyone person is the savior of the nation, is putting to much faith in them and it extrodinarily dangerous.
It's frightening.
reply posted on 24-2-2008 @ 12:03 PM by _Johnny_Utah_
reply to post by Justin_Case
I see this…
WMD’s found or not, the war was necessary.
How it has been managed…you are correct, it is sad. However, I tend to think much of the mismanagement is because there is such a stress on “collateral damage.” Yes, it is horrible when innocent people die, yes it is tragic when homes are destroyed…but to think any of that can be avoided it foolish. The public doesn’t mind a war as long as you can ONLY kill the bad people. I think the worries of collateral damage are nothing more than an extension of political correctness. If you go to liveleak.com you can see countless encounters with terrorists, but you also hear, is the conversations the Apache pilots have with their commanders. The lengths to which they must go before they fire on even a KNOWN target are absurd.
You can hear the pilot checking with the copilot. Then, they send the information to the base. The man at the base sends it to his superior. The superior thinks about it. He then give the radio operator at the base the order and he tells the pilots. They exchange initials and give the time and date. What is also told to the pilots is the caliber of weapon to be used. Then, many times there is another discussion on whether another weapon will cause less “collateral damage.” The whole process is repeated…then, if the all the terrorists haven’t fled or dispersed, they can fire.
This is the process required to fire on a group lf men who just planted an IED or ambushed AMERICAN soldiers!
There are similar yet equally restricting rules of engagement for foot soldiers. There were about 12 steps they needed to take before they could go for a kill shot. With the new strategy, it’s down to about seven. Just because a person is firing on them, they don’t have the ability to fire back. They have to get confirmation the shots fired were directed at them. They have find the PERSON (the individual even if there are others with weapons around him) who fired. Never mind the fact he just tried to kill them, they have to demand he lower his weapon. If he refuses, warning shots are given. Then, after another demand of lowering the weapon, they WARN him they will open fire AGAIN. Finally, they can kill him.
IS that how wars are won? Do you ask your enemy "hey, buddy, do mind not shooting at me and can you put your gun down?"
If a man shoots at you…you should be able to kill him then and there.
This is because it is the most televised war in history and people seem to have forgotten how ugly and terrible wars are.
So, the ineptitudes of President Bush’s strategy or implementation in the War on Terror can only be blamed on parts of the public who wanted to see the war, but not the ugliness of it.
They can’t have it both ways.
I see this…
WMD’s found or not, the war was necessary.
How it has been managed…you are correct, it is sad. However, I tend to think much of the mismanagement is because there is such a stress on “collateral damage.” Yes, it is horrible when innocent people die, yes it is tragic when homes are destroyed…but to think any of that can be avoided it foolish. The public doesn’t mind a war as long as you can ONLY kill the bad people. I think the worries of collateral damage are nothing more than an extension of political correctness. If you go to liveleak.com you can see countless encounters with terrorists, but you also hear, is the conversations the Apache pilots have with their commanders. The lengths to which they must go before they fire on even a KNOWN target are absurd.
You can hear the pilot checking with the copilot. Then, they send the information to the base. The man at the base sends it to his superior. The superior thinks about it. He then give the radio operator at the base the order and he tells the pilots. They exchange initials and give the time and date. What is also told to the pilots is the caliber of weapon to be used. Then, many times there is another discussion on whether another weapon will cause less “collateral damage.” The whole process is repeated…then, if the all the terrorists haven’t fled or dispersed, they can fire.
This is the process required to fire on a group lf men who just planted an IED or ambushed AMERICAN soldiers!
There are similar yet equally restricting rules of engagement for foot soldiers. There were about 12 steps they needed to take before they could go for a kill shot. With the new strategy, it’s down to about seven. Just because a person is firing on them, they don’t have the ability to fire back. They have to get confirmation the shots fired were directed at them. They have find the PERSON (the individual even if there are others with weapons around him) who fired. Never mind the fact he just tried to kill them, they have to demand he lower his weapon. If he refuses, warning shots are given. Then, after another demand of lowering the weapon, they WARN him they will open fire AGAIN. Finally, they can kill him.
IS that how wars are won? Do you ask your enemy "hey, buddy, do mind not shooting at me and can you put your gun down?"
If a man shoots at you…you should be able to kill him then and there.
This is because it is the most televised war in history and people seem to have forgotten how ugly and terrible wars are.
So, the ineptitudes of President Bush’s strategy or implementation in the War on Terror can only be blamed on parts of the public who wanted to see the war, but not the ugliness of it.
They can’t have it both ways.
reply posted on 25-2-2008 @ 09:25 AM by _Johnny_Utah_
reply to post by Justin_Case
Ralph Nader is either a masochist or a man who likes to cause trouble with the Democratic Party.
while he doesn't take many votes in the entire picture, in a close race the few votes he gets may be the few the Dem's needed and lost out on to go over the top.
Ralph Nader is either a masochist or a man who likes to cause trouble with the Democratic Party.
while he doesn't take many votes in the entire picture, in a close race the few votes he gets may be the few the Dem's needed and lost out on to go over the top.
Pages: ^^TOP^^
