Woo-hoo! Remember folks, Your vote counts!Originally Posted by bubba
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
- Location
- Meh.
- Posts
- 12,182
Woo-hoo! Remember folks, Your vote counts!
Your Vote
When I was living in Chicago we had a saying:Woo-hoo! Remember folks, Your vote counts!
Remember, Vote Early and Vote Often!
Your vote counts--at least twice, if you a Democrat!
Elisheva Levin
"It is not up to us to complete the task,
but neither are we free to desist from it."
--Pirkei Avot
Re: Your Vote
:lol:When I was living in Chicago we had a saying:Woo-hoo! Remember folks, Your vote counts!
Remember, Vote Early and Vote Often!
Your vote counts--at least twice, if you a Democrat!
A whole block of votes counts 1 vote will not make a difference. So no your one vote does not count as elections are almost never dicided by one vote. Only a fool doesn't know that their one single vote does not matter.
I have been saying that for quite some time here. :-)
Note to Hopeful Cynic:
Next time you read another one of these SCOTUS-bashing posts (and I don't care who writes it), take this advice.
Turn off the computer. Mix up your favorite beverage. Turn off the lights. Sit in your favorite comfy chair and turn up Watermark or Shepherd Moons as loud as you can stand it.
:-)
You're only talking income taxes here, right? Surely you pay property taxes and/or sales taxes in California? :-?We don't pay taxes.so, mom, are you rich or do you not pay taxes?
TK
We live on a single income of approximately 40,000 a year. I stay home with the 3 kids. Every year we break almost even. Usually the gov. gives us back about 400.
Not to mention auto registration fees?
Scrap that middle sentence. Elections are never decided by one vote. What's more, E2K's focus on the mechanics of voting indicate that even those votes which are cast stand a nontrivial chance of being misread, thrown out, or even ignored. However, come election time, plenty of effort is put forth trying to convince people of what, according to you, only a fool doesn't know is false.
If a vote doesn't matter to the outcome, no vote matters to the outcome. (A proposition with which I agree, btw)
oh.... so the answer is "neither". and apparently the rich are not the only ones paying taxes.O.K, here it is....Wages 42,364. Fed. In. tx. wh. 979.27so, mom, are you rich or do you not pay taxes?
Ammount refunded this year. 450.00
difference of: 529.00 taxes paid.
TK
Well, of course we pay sales tax. 8% I think. No property tax, because we can't afford a mortgage of a half Million. (not joking)You're only talking income taxes here, right? Surely you pay property taxes and/or sales taxes in California? :-?We don't pay taxes.so, mom, are you rich or do you not pay taxes?
TK
We live on a single income of approximately 40,000 a year. I stay home with the 3 kids. Every year we break almost even. Usually the gov. gives us back about 400.
Not to mention auto registration fees?
Auto registration!!!! aaaaaahhhhhhhgghhhh....THAT SUCKS!!
My son Justin pays 35.00 every 2 years, right Justin?
We pay about 300.00 every year.
...."um...(obvious confusion)...what?"
"Max"
(silence)
"It's short for Maxine"
" *brightens*....oh!"
"But nobody calls me that"
I wonder why the difference? Are you an independant contractor who has to pay his own SSI? (And therefore pays it twice?)I'll be damned. That third kid must make all the difference. I made just over 40K last year, and lost just over a third of it to taxes. Even after all is said and done, I think I ended up with 7-8K less than my contract with my employer says I should.
...."um...(obvious confusion)...what?"
"Max"
(silence)
"It's short for Maxine"
" *brightens*....oh!"
"But nobody calls me that"
In the Badger State we have a 5.5% sales tax (5.6% if you live in the Miller Park Tax Zone :evil: ), and our auto registration fee is only $45 per year, for now. I think that will go up very soon. We have some of the highest gas taxes and excise taxes on tobacco and booze in the country, if I'm not mistaken.Well, of course we pay sales tax. 8% I think. No property tax, because we can't afford a mortgage of a half Million. (not joking)You're only talking income taxes here, right? Surely you pay property taxes and/or sales taxes in California? :-?We don't pay taxes.so, mom, are you rich or do you not pay taxes?
TK
We live on a single income of approximately 40,000 a year. I stay home with the 3 kids. Every year we break almost even. Usually the gov. gives us back about 400.
Not to mention auto registration fees?
Auto registration!!!! aaaaaahhhhhhhgghhhh....THAT SUCKS!!
My son Justin pays 35.00 every 2 years, right Justin?
We pay about 300.00 every year.
Nope. I'm just a regular, salaried corporate goon. The way it breaks down (and I do have a mortgage to deduct, along with IRA's fo myself and my wife, and educational funds for my kids...) is about 2.5K to the state, about 3K to the feds, and the remaining 2.5K in pissed-away SocSec. Even if I decide to go War Tax resisting, I'm still out better than 5 grand.
On top of that, vehicle registration is somewhat higher than you mentioned, though my wife drives, and I bicycle the all of 2 miles (and some 200 vertical feet) to work and back -- so I'm not sure exactly what it is. I know we do pay something like $1600 yearly in property taxes for what that's worth. Plus about 50 cents per gallon in gas taxes. Plus, there's talk of a county income tax levy.
But at least there's no sales tax...
Re: Your Vote
In the same vein, I have a friend who wants to be buried in Chicago so he can continue to participate in Democratic Party politics. Always wins a smile.:lol:When I was living in Chicago we had a saying:Woo-hoo! Remember folks, Your vote counts!
Remember, Vote Early and Vote Often!
Your vote counts--at least twice, if you a Democrat!
It's got to be the 401K. This is what we have, diddly squat.Nope. I'm just a regular, salaried corporate goon. The way it breaks down (and I do have a mortgage to deduct, along with IRA's fo myself and my wife, and educational funds for my kids...) is about 2.5K to the state, about 3K to the feds, and the remaining 2.5K in pissed-away SocSec. Even if I decide to go War Tax resisting, I'm still out better than 5 grand.
On top of that, vehicle registration is somewhat higher than you mentioned, though my wife drives, and I bicycle the all of 2 miles (and some 200 vertical feet) to work and back -- so I'm not sure exactly what it is. I know we do pay something like $1600 yearly in property taxes for what that's worth. Plus about 50 cents per gallon in gas taxes. Plus, there's talk of a county income tax levy.
But at least there's no sales tax...
...."um...(obvious confusion)...what?"
"Max"
(silence)
"It's short for Maxine"
" *brightens*....oh!"
"But nobody calls me that"
The 401k's really don't help that much. Basically, we get two $2000 deductions. Actually, that makes my situation look even worse, compared to yours. Consider, after the 401k deductions, I think I ended up making a bit less than 40K...
Confrontation v Synthesis
There is too much truth in this. When I see someone from one extreme of American politics bashing someone from the opposite extreme, I tune out right quick. I've read it all before. There is too much material available to take all of it seriously.
And it is very true that the 21st century values are not going to be a compromise between the two old 20th century value sets. There will be much that is very new.
Still, if no one listens to anyone, if no one tries to learn, we get nowhere. Still, confrontational debate, based on an "I'm right therefore everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot, so let me point out how much of an idiot he is" premise goes nowhere.
And it is true that it takes something really deep to change values. Most important is a willingness to examine one's values. If that is there, growth is possible, what other people have to say becomes relevant. Attempting conversation about the nature and shape of the oncoming crisis with those rock solid sure of their values might be futile. The Crisis will change values, but until existing values have blatantly failed, true movement, true growth, won't happen.
This past local election of April 1st in my community saw a current city council member lose by one vote.
And of course, votes add up. Duh. I just do not understand people who say that their vote doesn't ever matter.
1987 INTP
The votes do add up by the numbers, but the impact of them are diluted much by the electoral college votes and the big transnats buying influence and such.
My name is John, and I want to be a Chemist When I grow up.
http://www.heatlightning.com/2003/MA..._collapse.html
(Standard disclaimers)
Nationwide French fry boycott brings France to its knees; Paris in flames as looters riot for third day
Destitute Parisians scavenge for food in what was once the Champs Elysee section of Paris. Most of Paris was destroyed in citywide riots over the weekend.
PARIS -- French officials struggled to maintain law and order Monday as the country's once-robust economy and infrastructure teetered on the brink of ruin.
A devastating American boycott of French fries has caused most businesses, including several government-backed banks and mortgage companies, to suddenly default on their loans and freeze millions of customer accounts. With the economy in a tailspin, millions of jobs are being eliminated daily. And with no access to money or savings, the French population began to show signs of panic as early as last Thursday.
"We are begging our United Nations and NATO allies to please remove these economic sanctions," pleaded French president Jacques Chirac as he attempted to escape the burning French capital building. "These so-called Freedom Fries are destroying our country!"
Large bands of armed looters rioted for the third consecutive day in Paris, destroying hundreds of businesses with firebombs and battling the tattered remnants of French security forces.
"What do they expect us to do?" exclaimed Ferdinand Rohns, a Parisian who suddenly found himself without a home, job, or bank account late last week. "We have nothing left, nothing I tell you!"
Woefully underpaid and underfed French security forces struggled against the rising tide of riotous looters. Most divisions of the French national security forces were reporting heavy casualties, even as they attempted to retreat and abandon Paris to take up positions in the country side.
French Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin, threatened a retaliatory boycott if the French fry sanctions were not immediately lifted.
"It would be a human disaster on a biblical scale if no American films were viewed at Cannes this year," de Villepin said from his secret government bunker on the outskirts of Orleans. "I hate to make such a threat, but one act of war will be met with another."
United States Secretary of State Colin Powell dismissed the threat as coming from "a very desperate, very obnoxious man" while noting that Cannes "isn't shit without Hollywood."
A COUNTRY DIVIDED:
Destitute looters have levelled several major French cities, including regional capials Lyon and Orleans, and now control almost 50% of the country.
French security forces loyal to the federal government are now retreating from Paris and central France as they are pushed back towards the Atlantic coast.
Hundreds of thousands of refugees are heading north to Belgium and south to Spain to escape the civil unrest.
Heatlightning Graphic Dept.
Refugees a Concern
The United Nations task force for refugee affairs has officially asked Spain and Belgium to open their borders to the millions of refugees seeking relief from the civil unrest. While camps are slowly being built to house hundreds of thousands of French refugees, neighboring countries have already begun to wonder just exactly how long they will be asked to provide stale loaves of hard bread and bitter wine to comfort and feed the French refugees, many of whom are, despite their destitute status, wholly snotty and obnoxious to their non-French hosts.
"On the one hand, we are willing to help our NATO ally," said Belgian spokesman Gerard Vilamona. "On the other hand... well, fuck it, I'll say it: we hate those French bastards and it we weren't already allies, we'd most certainly be enemies. There, I said it."
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer had little comment on the situation in France, except to say, "They were given a choice: you're either with us or against us. They made their choice and our wise GOP leaders decided on a course of action. God bless Freedom fries."
I thought they were called French Fries because they are soft, yellow and you have to pull them out of the fire.
...."um...(obvious confusion)...what?"
"Max"
(silence)
"It's short for Maxine"
" *brightens*....oh!"
"But nobody calls me that"
http://www.heatlightning.com/2003/MA...oll_mercy.html
(Standard disclaimers)
Americans surpised to learn they were living 'at the mercy' of Saddam Hussein
Heatlighting Staff
Americans were shocked to learn about Saddam's power over the United States
New York - A nationwide poll commissioned by Heatlightning / MSNBC reveals that the vast majority of Americans were not aware they were living "at the mercy" of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The poll found exactly 99.9999993% of Americans were unaware of this fact.
President George W. Bush informed the public of the troubling situation during a nationally televised address from the White House Wednesday night to announce the commencement of bombing over Iraq.
"The American people refuse to live at the mercy of a lawless and criminal regime under Saddam Hussein any longer," the President said.
The President then repeated the claim twice more within 72 hours, once during another televised address from the White House to update the public on the war progress, and also during his regular weekly radio address from Camp David, Maryland.
Reaction across the country was swift as Americans came to grips with the unsettling news.
"I had no idea the situation was so dire," said a visibly disturbed Fran Ross, a retiree and grandmother from Elk City, Montana. "To find out only now, on the eve of war, that we've been living at the mercy of a ruthless Middle Eastern tyrant of these years, well, I guess we're all just lucky to still be here."
Randolph Grieves, a welder from Hattisburg, Mississippi, was one of only .0000007% of poll respondents who were aware of America's precarious position. "Hell, I done tolt ma wife just last week, I sez, huney, I do believes we be livin' at the mercy a' that dang Sodomy Insane feller over thar in the Middle Eastern. An she jes tell me ta shut up an' pass the hooch."
According to the nationwide Heatlightning poll, most Americans had the wrong impression of the control Saddam Hussein has over the United States.
Duke University's Dr. Daniel Holdsclaw, a historian of national security issues, says that America has a long and proud history of obliviously "living under the thumb" of foreign nations. According to Holdclaw, until 1981, America was living "under the influence" of the former Soviet Union republic of Turkmenistan. From 1981 to 1986, the country was "living under the hypnotic suggestion" of the small eastern African nation Djibouti. From 1986 until the first Gulf War, in 1991, the United State was living "as the subservient slave" to the People's Autonomous Republic of Outer Mongolia.
"But since the first Gulf War in 1991," Dr. Holdsclaw said, "we have been living, as the President noted several times recently, at the mercy of Saddam Hussein. As such, he could have eliminated our entire country with the slightest gesture to one of his ruthless henchmen. In fact, we should all be very, very thankful to this Administration for discovering this alarming situation and finding the resolve to do something about it."
The poll has a margin of error of +/- .000002%.
Several calls to Saddam Hussein's Presidential Palaces were not returned.
http://www.heatlightning.com/2003/MA..._division.html
(Standard disclaimers)
Pentagon calls up 3rd Evidence Planting Division for action in Iraq conflict
A member of the United State's elite 3rd Evidence Planting Divsion checks chemcial weapons scheduled to be found in Baghdad next week.
FORT HOOD, Texas -- The Pentagon comfirmed Friday that some 500 members of the military's elite 3rd Evidence Planting Division were being called up for immediate duty in Iraq.
The soldiers have less than 48 hours to prepare for their deployment.
"We are highly trained and highly motivated," said Major Thomas Kincaid, repeating a sentiment expressed by hundreds of other US soldiers in Iraq. "The evidence we will be bringing to Iraq will be simply overwhelming."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld downplayed to 3rd Division's sudden deployment.
"This is in no way a reaction to the events of the last week. This is not even newsworthy," Rumsfeld insisted. "I don't know why I bother talking to you people. We have always planned to deloy this division as part of our 'rolling deployment' plan of which I spoken several times."
When pressed further, Rumsfeld defended the military's use of unlawfully planting evidence in Iraq.
"We would have found evidence of weapons of mass destruction if we had simply invaded in the first place," Rumsfeld said. "But this whole square dance with the UN set us back and allowed the Iraqi regime to hide their weapons of mass destruction. So, as you can see, since we would have found the evidence anyway, who really care where it comes from at this point?"
The 3rd Evidence Planting Division is scheduled to depart from Fort Hood Sunday morning and arrive in Kuwait City, via Germany, late Monday evening.
"I anticipate we'll have some evidence planted by Wednesday," Kincaid said. "Certainly by Thursday we should start seeing press conferences to that effect. I haven't been briefed on the particulars of our mission, but I would expect our fellow coalition forces to turn up illegal weapons of mass destruction on the outskirts of Baghdad, at least one bunker in western Iraq and, if we have time, we'll set up a chemical weapons lab in Tikrit to really pin it on Saddam."
Learn to type bubba
OK I'll deal with it-- as follows
The only dilemna involved is whether Democrats have a spine to say something that might lose them a few votes. Most of them don't, which is why I'm no longer a Democrat.The onset of the war in Iraq has created a dilemma for those Democrats who opposed last year's resolution authorizing military force, and this year's decision to use force when the United Nations could not come up with an alternative means of disarming Saddam Hussein.
The UN had the viable alternative means of disarming Saddam, which was simply to verify that in fact he HAD disarmed already. That there "was not an alternative" was not true. What is true is that Bush wanted to go to war, regardless of whether Saddam had WMD or not. WMD was a cover for the new Bush policy of colonial imperialism; of changing governments we don't like-- because we think we can do it.
In other words, he chooses to remember the lessons of Vietnam instead of forgetting them, as you bubba, and this stupid author, have done.But one antiwar Democrat has refused to change his rhetoric at all, and is supplying a fascinating exhibition of the Left's "Vietnam Syndrome": the tendency to interpret any military conflict through the nostalgic lens of the political struggle against the war in Vietnam.
That's because, in both cases, that's where the inspiration is.Like rock musicians, antiwar protesters tend to keep going back to the 1960s and early 1970s for role models and inspiration.
I went to see him speak here in CA Silicon Valley and talked to him a bit. I don't know if he can win an election (probably not this year), but he's a bright guy saying the right things. He gave an anti-war speech, but it was not an echo of McGovern's speech.But few are as fearlessly faithful to the Vietnam War era of protests as presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who made a speech on the first day of the war in Iraq that consciously echoed George McGovern's "Come Home America" acceptance speech at the 1972 Democratic Convention.
Well, sounds like good advice to me. It was then, and it is now-- although some of it like the Dept. of Peace are new ideas."Come home, America," said Kucinich to the National Newspaper Association on March 20. "Come home and fix your broken streets and mend your broken dreams.... Come home and establish a living wage.... Come home and provide single payer, guaranteed health care for the forty-one million Americans who suffer illness without relief.... Come home and provide guaranteed social security for generations to come without privatization and without extending the retirement age, which would be devastating for minorities.... Come home and make non-violence an organizing principle within our society through the creation of a Department of Peace, America!"
I've said this before, and it's really a question of who is pathetic. Are the people pathetic who sound like the protesters of the 1960s? Or is it pathetic that we must sound like that, because America has made so patheitcally little progress in all the years since? The latter is the case. America has been stuck for over 20 years. It IS truly pathetic.
Policies that have never been tried, because they have been blocked by idiot right wing Republicans for over 20 years, are not outdated or failed. Nor is anything visionary that anybody says "outdated". The right-wingers simply denounce any proposal that is made "outdated" because it might take the government to help create it-- no the right-wingers want the government to keep them rich and powerful instead. The left is always the future, even if not all its ideas are workable; the right is the past in any case, and none of its ideas are anything more than past failed ideas. We Americans simply refuse to move into the future, because we have been brainwashed by Reagan and Bush and Gingrich et al.The Kucinich campaign is sort of the Unclaimed Freight Outlet of Democratic politics, retailing every failed or outdated lefty idea with a fierce and touching passion.
Anybody who thinks these Kucinich ideas are outdated, are just among those who wish nothing at all to be done to bring progress to our country, but are merely apologists for those who hold the wealth and power in our country and have continued to keep it, and keep America back from what it should and could be. Too bad. And how boring a country we have become, afraid to do anything whatever.
Carter and Clinton did not start preemptive invasions. They used the military for defense and peace-keeping. There really was a change in policy under them, because they learned the lessons of Vietnam. Carter even spelled that out in his inaugural. Meanwhile, Reagan and the Bushes did not; they used the military to invade other nations and support terrorists.But Kucinich also reflects a persistent if small faction in the party that helps reinforce Republican claims that Democrats simply cannot be trusted with military leadership or with vigorous defense of our national interests. These come-home-America liberals are in many respects still fighting against the Vietnam War, and tend to react to any prospective use of military force by hauling out the same old signs and slogans. As a Pew Research Group poll recently showed, they are isolated from the rest of the U.S. electorate in their opposition to the war. If allowed to define the Democratic Party's approach to national security issues, they would undoubtedly drag the party back into the electoral hole it inhabited for much of the post-Vietnam era of the 1970s and 1980s.
If the left hauls out the same old peace slogans, it is because the right hauls out the same old failed war policies.
But he is correct. The Democratic wing is progressive. The progressive position today is to move beyond the age of colonial imperialist invasions. The conservatives want to continue that policy, which is what they are doing as we speak.Antiwar Democrats are entitled to their opinions. In fact, we share most of their concerns about the Bush Administration diplomacy that has made the drive to disarm Iraq such a lonely endeavor for the United States and the United Kingdom, without letting those concerns obscure the national interest in toppling Saddam. But antiwar Democrats do not have the right to claim, as Dean often does, that opposing the war is a matter of fidelity to Democratic tradition, or that antiwar Democrats represent "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."
It was a cowardly resolution, to say the least. The resolution gave carte blanche to Bush to wage war if he wanted, so Bush simply ignored the UN and went to war anyway. If it was principled as claimed, it would have prohibited Bush to go to war without UN approval. And we had no other principles upon which to base preemptive, colonial aggression against another state. Our national interests were not threatened. If our congress was blind to those facts, that only shows how spineless and timid they were, and nothing else. I'm glad at least that Sen Byrd and Sen Kennedy stood up and told the truth. They were real Democrats.The truth is that there's an enduring tradition of Democratic support for the principled use of force that predated and survived the tragedy of the Vietnam War. It was built by Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, who practiced and preached a muscular internationalism, often exercised over the protests of isolationist Republicans. This is the tradition that President Bill Clinton sought to revive, and that led him to lead NATO to military action in Kosovo, again over the protests of neo-isolationist Republicans. It supports active diplomacy, collective security and multilateral institutions, not in order to surrender our country's right to act on its principles, but because good allies and strong institutions of international law make us stronger as well. And it's the tradition that was reflected in a Congressional use-of-force resolution that demanded the Administration take its case against Saddam to the United Nations while preserving America's right to enforce international law against Iraq alone if necessary.
There is no reason to think that Kucinich would not have adopted this policy: "active diplomacy, collective security and multilateral institutions, not in order to surrender our country's right to act on its principles, but because good allies and strong institutions of international law make us stronger as well."
But what existed before Vietnam was indeed a "muscular" internationalism, which was not the above, but a policy of invading other countries and toppling governments we didn't like. Bush has simply gone back to that policy, even more blatantly. In Vietnam, we invaded another country under the cover of a "civil war;" this time we blatantly invaded another nation for no reason other than to impose our policies on it. The Bush policy is that international laws and institutions make us weaker, and should be ignored. It is even worse than the pre-Vietnam policy. The fact that America's congress didn't resist this, may show a 4T mood-- or it may simply show the bankruptcy of our politicians in this age, and the fact that they have no principle and no courage. Is that a 4T attitude??
What a bunch of unadulterated crap. If a war more illegal than any America has waged in at least a century, is not a reason for protest, I don't know what is. Protest against such a war, does not in the least prove that protesters would protest against any war that comes along. Far from it; it shows the opposite. It shows that warmongers will object to any protest that comes along, not matter how justified. No, Vietnam is not something to forget about, or move past. There is nothing to "reassert," except the failed policies that went before and caused Vietnam.Some aging baby boomers may continue to view every military conflict as a reprise of the big war of their youth, and some politicians may opportunistically offer them a sort of battleground reenactment of the protests they fondly remember. But for the rest of us, the Vietnam War is long over, and it's time to reassert Democratic internationalism for a new era.
We Boomers who protested Vietnam are not aging; we are staying young. Some cynical Xers were old before their time, and have no ideals. Luckily, many Xers have more brains than this.
No, the 1960s was the start of whatever "new era" there is. It is a new era in which people will increasingly realize that the time when war is acceptable as a policy, except as the only possible response to attack, is in reality passed. The 1960s was the start of an era when we move beyond war. The fact that protests have occured against this war sooner and in greater numbers than for any previous war, shows that protest of war and the alternatives for peace is the future, and aggression for power and wealth (the current Bush policy) is the past.
Wake up and smell the coffee bubba, and all you other bubbas. You and your kind represent not only an outdated way of thinking, but an outdated species. Go back to your dinosaur cave (or is it the red zone), and let the rest of us move on.
Is this the thread where Bubba accused Brian of being of slightly above average intelligence? Brian is friggin' brilliant! For example, I know damn well that he is posing as a space alien from Zeta Reticuli, communicating telepathically with that lady at the Zetatalk forum. That ain't no alien, that's Brian Rush using Psi on that poor lady! Here is a sample below. We are told that a highly advanced alien intelligence is communicating this. You tell me: highly advanced space alien or Brian Rush? I think the answer is obvious. :lol: :lol: :lol:
http://www.zetatalk.com/science/s57.htm
ZetaTalk: Tunguska Explosion
A source of endless speculation is the wide area of flattened trees, spread outward in a circle, the result of an apparent explosion that occurred just after the turn of the century in Siberia. No witnesses, radioactivity, or meteor remains seem to exist as pieces toward solving this puzzle. Nuclear power was not yet in mankind's hands. What occurred? The Tunguska trees are devastated by an explosion that occurred close to the ground, as evidenced by the butterfly pattern of trees knocked sideways. It was a huge cloud of well mixed methane and air, equivalent to all the natural gas being piped about in the US at any given time, and the burn spread around this cloud or that, under and over and around, until a particular pocket of well mixed methane and air had no where to go with its heat since the burn was all around. Itself burning, the heat ramped the combustion up to the explosion level.
Methane gas occurs naturally, a result of the decomposition of organic materials. Landfills must vent this or experience explosions. Some humans know they can light and briefly burn their farts. Humus or accidentally buried organic material is a source of methane gas, and if not vented, this attempts to rise, being light, and will pool if trapped. Siberia was once lush, a fact the carcasses of mastodons reveal, as their bellies are full of grass. Flash frozen and covered with volcanic dust, organic material lies as a potential. Where Siberia may appear to be a frozen wasteland, the center of the Earth is hot, and decomposition of trapped matter, proceeding slowly but over a long time, can accumulate a large, trapped pool of methane gas. Released Due to a Shift in the Earth's crust and encountering a raise in temperature sufficient to act as a spark, this would explode, with the size of the explosion in proportion to the volume of violently venting gas.
The burn was lit by the wick traveling back along the wisp of methane that had been blow up and southwest by the prevailing westerlies over Siberia. What witnesses saw was the burn off of methane that had disbursed into the air and was not sandwiched between burning masses so that its heat had nowhere to go, the basis of exploding, rather than burning, gas bombs. The process was:
- Methane gas hisses out from under frozen permafrost that had been cracked like a sheet of glass due to earth stress, pre-shock to the earthquake that was recorded during the Tunguska explosion.
- Methane gas mixes with the air as it rises, followed by more hissing air, so that a huge cloud of methane has formed in the atmosphere over Tunguska, equivalent to all the natural gas at any given time in the US.
- A wick of methane that has drifted upward and southeast, driven by the prevailing westerlies, is sparked due to the air movement, the same process that causes lighting due to rapid air movement during storms.
- The lit methane burns rapidly back along the wick, the "meteor" that was seen, lights all the gas that is encountered but before all but the nearest witnesses can see it, those who died in the explosion, an overburn over gasses closer to the surface prevents heat from rising and an explosive situation occurs.
The explanation that a meteor exploded above ground is an attempt by the establishment to avoid the methane gas, and thus the pole shift and shifting crust issue. Comets and meteors do not explode when encountering Earth?s atmosphere. This is not what your history or science presents to you! If they are monstrous, they plunge to Earth and leave a crater such as the Gulf of Mexico off Yucatan. If they are tiny, they burn up in the atmosphere as shooting stars. If they are midsized, they burn on their periphery but land to be rocks picked up and examined by your scientists. The lack of meteor particles or dust proves that it was not an exploding meteor. Methane, once burned or disbursed into the air, leaves no trace. Meteors leave traces, methane does not.
Hey that Zeta chick is channeling my husbands farts!Methane gas hisses out from under frozen permafrost that had been cracked like a sheet of glass due to earth stress, pre-shock to the earthquake that was recorded during the Tunguska explosion.
...."um...(obvious confusion)...what?"
"Max"
(silence)
"It's short for Maxine"
" *brightens*....oh!"
"But nobody calls me that"
