<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>gdp's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>https://www.intensedebate.com/users/973140</link>
		<description>Comments by JonathonMoseley</description>
<item>
<title>Expose Obama : O&#039;Donnell Aide: Obama&#039;s a Secret Muslim</title>
<link>http://www.exposeobama.com/2010/09/20/odonnell-aide-obamas-a-secret-muslim/#IDComment100199070</link>
<description>God Bless America!God  bless Herman Cain!God bless all Americans!And I say to all &quot;MUSLIMS&quot; , go wherever you want, but just leave our country to the people who deserve it, Americans. Go back from whence you came. Just leave here while there is time.</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2011 08:25:03 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.exposeobama.com/2010/09/20/odonnell-aide-obamas-a-secret-muslim/#IDComment100199070</guid>
</item><item>
<title>OnlyKent.com - Breaking news from around the world : Delaware Politician Christine O&#039;Donnell Responds to CREW&#039;s Accusations</title>
<link>http://www.onlykent.com/20100921/delaware-politician-christine-odonnell-responds-to-crews-accusations/#IDComment100281975</link>
<description>When I was briefly Christine O&amp;#039;Donnell&amp;#039;s Treasurer in 2008 (only to meet a deadline while we sought an experienced Treasurer), the campaign did not have any money in 2008.  I bought the bumper stickers and yard signs, etc., etc. on my personal c redit card, which the campaign later paid back to me.    So I know of no such use of campaign funds.  People are acting as if the campaign actually had a lot of money before recently.  However, I can say that the pundits are foolishly ignoring the actual FEC rules... which allow a candidate to be paid a salary or stipend from campaign funds.  People should do their homework before saying foolish things. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 01:41:16 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.onlykent.com/20100921/delaware-politician-christine-odonnell-responds-to-crews-accusations/#IDComment100281975</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Expose Obama : O&#039;Donnell Aide: Obama&#039;s a Secret Muslim</title>
<link>http://www.exposeobama.com/2010/09/20/odonnell-aide-obamas-a-secret-muslim/#IDComment100281341</link>
<description>You are very kind.  Thank you. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 01:36:07 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.exposeobama.com/2010/09/20/odonnell-aide-obamas-a-secret-muslim/#IDComment100281341</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Expose Obama : O&#039;Donnell Aide: Obama&#039;s a Secret Muslim</title>
<link>http://www.exposeobama.com/2010/09/20/odonnell-aide-obamas-a-secret-muslim/#IDComment100281172</link>
<description>I am certain that Chrstine will make a great US Senator. Any good campaign professional (or attorney) makes sure that he knows his client&amp;#039;s or candidates strengths and weaknesses. Christine&amp;#039;s strengths are all concentrated in the tasks and challenges of being a US Senator. Even things that are perhaps weaknesses in some vocations will be strengths in the environment of the US Senate.   What I meant was that when I have become aware of problems stirring I have sent those on to the campaign&amp;#039;s email. For example, some journalists have called me asking me questions. When this indicates where they are headed on trying to attack Christine, I let the campaign know about it. But I have not heard anything back or coordinated in any way with her campaign since June 2008. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 01:34:03 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.exposeobama.com/2010/09/20/odonnell-aide-obamas-a-secret-muslim/#IDComment100281172</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Impeach Obama Campaign : O&#039;Donnell Aide: Obama&#039;s a Secret Muslim</title>
<link>http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/odonnell-aide-obamas-a-secret-muslim/#IDComment100212977</link>
<description>Please note that I am not affiliated with Christine O&amp;#039;Donnell&amp;#039;s 2010 campaign for Senate.  However, i strongly support Christine for the US Senate in 2010 and I will strongly speak out and organize for her as an independent private citizen.  Everyone else is talking about the race.  I will, too.  However, I have not communicated with the campaign since June 2008 except strictly about accounting reimbursement of my unpaid expenses from 2008, which were eventually paid back to me.  I have also forwarded attacks on Christine to the campaign&amp;#039;s email address.  But I have not received any response or feedback from Christine or her campaign since June 2008 about her campaign. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:03:53 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/odonnell-aide-obamas-a-secret-muslim/#IDComment100212977</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Impeach Obama Campaign : O&#039;Donnell Aide: Obama&#039;s a Secret Muslim</title>
<link>http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/odonnell-aide-obamas-a-secret-muslim/#IDComment100212693</link>
<description>Please read the original post, not the distortion by the news media:   &lt;a href=&quot;http://usnavjonmoseley.blogspot.com/2009/04/is-barack-hussein-obama-still-muslim.html&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://usnavjonmoseley.blogspot.com/2009/04/is-ba...&lt;/a&gt; </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:01:36 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/odonnell-aide-obamas-a-secret-muslim/#IDComment100212693</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Expose Obama : O&#039;Donnell Aide: Obama&#039;s a Secret Muslim</title>
<link>http://www.exposeobama.com/2010/09/20/odonnell-aide-obamas-a-secret-muslim/#IDComment100199294</link>
<description>The original article was distorted, but even more convincing:   &lt;a href=&quot;http://usnavjonmoseley.blogspot.com/2009/04/is-barack-hussein-obama-still-muslim.html&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://usnavjonmoseley.blogspot.com/2009/04/is-ba...&lt;/a&gt; </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:19:59 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.exposeobama.com/2010/09/20/odonnell-aide-obamas-a-secret-muslim/#IDComment100199294</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Breitbart.com : Burning oil rig sinks into Gulf; 11 still missing</title>
<link>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F898C00&show_article=1#IDComment69926910</link>
<description>The key word in &amp;quot;controlled demolitoin&amp;quot; is CONTROLLED.  Professional demolition experts are used to CONTROL the collapse of a building to avoid damaging nearby buildings and people.  That is why no one destroys a bulding from the top down.  They blow out the bottom floors so that the building will fall into its footprint.  The WTC collapse would place a demo expert in JAIL for incompetence.  The two 1 acre towers fell across a 16 acre zone of debris.  2 acre footprints spread across 16 acres.  Massive damage to a dozen buildings in the area.  That&amp;#039;s what we DON&amp;#039;T want with a &amp;quot;controlled&amp;quot; demolition  </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:36:52 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F898C00&show_article=1#IDComment69926910</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Breitbart.com : Burning oil rig sinks into Gulf; 11 still missing</title>
<link>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F898C00&show_article=1#IDComment69926465</link>
<description>I am not saying they are the same thing.  I am saying that UNrefined crude oil burns hot enough to compromise the structural strength and integrity of steel.   Steel both softens and expands when heated.  REFINED jet fuel also burns hot enough to soften and expand steel at the WTC enough to cause it to fail.  But if you want to compare the two, (a) the WTC towers were holding up a huge weight above the aircraft impact damage.  So the WTC case is worse.  The oil rig fire on the surface did NOT involve large weight being carried.  The WTC case did involve massive weight abvoe the fire.  Both are a steel frame.  A building is NOT a solid block.  It is a skirt of an outside wall hanging on a steel frame.  Once the frame is compromised, the WTC fell as a group of DISCONNECTED steel links.  </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:33:04 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F898C00&show_article=1#IDComment69926465</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Breitbart.com : Burning oil rig sinks into Gulf; 11 still missing</title>
<link>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F898C00&show_article=1#IDComment69857677</link>
<description>WRong on all points.  It has happened MANY times before.   Just because &amp;quot;Truthers&amp;quot; are liars, does not make it so.  MANY steel buildings have collapsed due to fire alone.  Second, movement to the side requires a FORCE PUSHING it to the side.  That is basic physics.   Gravity pulls straight down.  Unless you have some force pushing to the side, you CANNOT get a building moving to the side.  It must fall straight down. </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 02:30:42 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F898C00&show_article=1#IDComment69857677</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Breitbart.com : Burning oil rig sinks into Gulf; 11 still missing</title>
<link>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F898C00&show_article=1#IDComment69857413</link>
<description>And BTW oil rigs must endure far more severe conditoins than the WTC.  The steel in an oil rig is subject to vast temperature differences.  An oil rig is moved from one location to another, which might be in the Gulf of Mexico or in the frigid North Sea  off of Scotland.  An oil rig is pounded by powerful waves.  Water is extremely powerful.  So if your argument is that oil rigs are built flimsy, you are barking up the wrong tree. </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 02:27:54 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F898C00&show_article=1#IDComment69857413</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Breitbart.com : Burning oil rig sinks into Gulf; 11 still missing</title>
<link>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F898C00&show_article=1#IDComment69857110</link>
<description>And the Titanic was made to be  unsinkable.  INTENTION is irrelevant.  Listen Dude, my father worked in a steel foundry after graduating from MIT.  ALL steel, regardless of type, is EQUALLY vulnerable to heat.    Quality has NOTHING to do with steel&amp;#039;s behavior when exposed to heat.   The quality of steel can affect its strength at ROOM temperature when exposed to STRESSES, such as bending, shearing, and compression. </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 02:24:41 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F898C00&show_article=1#IDComment69857110</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Breitbart.com : Burning oil rig sinks into Gulf; 11 still missing</title>
<link>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F898C00&show_article=1#IDComment69856834</link>
<description>Oil rigs stand on the ocean floor </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 02:22:16 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F898C00&show_article=1#IDComment69856834</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Breitbart.com : Burning oil rig sinks into Gulf; 11 still missing</title>
<link>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F898C00&show_article=1#IDComment69838362</link>
<description>Could be.  But simply wishing we had something else wont&amp;#039; make it so.   We should research alternatives.  OH WAIT, WE&amp;#039;VE BEEN DOING THAT SINCE WORLD WAR 2.     Never mind.  Remember:   The USA is not the only country in the world.  So conspiracy theories cannot explain lack of progress.  Scientists in ANY  country  who solve this problem will win fame and fortune.  No one in ANY country has had success.  Wind, solar, etc. can contribute a tiny amount.  They do work.  But htey are not powerful enough to supply meaningful amounts of energy.  </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2010 23:36:42 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F898C00&show_article=1#IDComment69838362</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Breitbart.com : Burning oil rig sinks into Gulf; 11 still missing</title>
<link>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F898C00&show_article=1#IDComment69837714</link>
<description>Since oil in the environment is the NATURAL state of affairs, in what sense can you call it a &amp;quot;CONTAMINANT?&amp;quot;  The presence of oil is NATURAL -- and existed millions of years before humans ever walked the Earth.  So which is &amp;quot;natural&amp;quot; and which is the &amp;quot;contaminant?&amp;quot;  Oil is leaking out of the sea bed NOW.   Globs of crude have been observed leaking out of cracks in the sea floor and floating around.  If you can take your cup down 1 mile below water, be my guest. </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2010 23:32:41 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F898C00&show_article=1#IDComment69837714</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Breitbart.com : Burning oil rig sinks into Gulf; 11 still missing</title>
<link>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F898C00&show_article=1#IDComment69836284</link>
<description>Everything you need to know about WTC 7 is right here:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEgPNNcdtu4&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEgPNNcdtu4&lt;/a&gt;  You can see the gigantic damage to WTC 7  happening right before your eyes.  BTW, the design for the WTC called for asbestos fireproofing.  Environmentalists caused that to be CANCELED at the last minute.  So a LACK of fireproofing as called for contributed.  But the explosion of 30 tons of jet fuel -- 236 times more powerful than the bomb that destroyed the Oklahoma City Federal Building -- ripped the insides of the towers to shreds and knocked off the inferior insulation. </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2010 23:23:43 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F898C00&show_article=1#IDComment69836284</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Breitbart.com : Burning oil rig sinks into Gulf; 11 still missing</title>
<link>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F898C00&show_article=1#IDComment69835534</link>
<description>There is no such thing in this context as &amp;quot;high grade&amp;quot; steel.     When it comes to HEAT, ALL STEEL SOFTENS WHEN HEATED.  There is no difference between the heat properties of any grade of steel.  Heat is heat.  Heat saps steel of its strength.  In fact, it is a HEATING process that CREATES different grades of steel.  Apply significant heat, and you are back to square one in terms of the properties of steel.  Grades of steel refer to the vulnerability of steel to PHYSICAL DAMAGE from snapping, compression, etc. -- not to its behavior when heated. </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2010 23:18:44 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F898C00&show_article=1#IDComment69835534</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Breitbart.com : Burning oil rig sinks into Gulf; 11 still missing</title>
<link>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F898C00&show_article=1#IDComment69835067</link>
<description>It has been explained.  Go to:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.911Reality.com&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://www.911Reality.com&lt;/a&gt;  No steel melted.  Steel loses 80% of its strength at 1400 degrees, HALF the temperature at which steel melts.  Steel EXPANDS when heated, causing any rigid structure to TWIST, WARP, and DISCONNECT.   As the steel members expand, the connector bolts are sheared off, leaving the links of steel DISCONNECTED from each other, and leaving a Raggedy Ann doll.  The collapse started at precisely where the aircraft impact did severe damage.  The collapse that lasted 15-17 secodns obeyed gravity precisely.  Free fall from that break point would have been about 7.5 seconds   </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2010 23:16:09 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F898C00&show_article=1#IDComment69835067</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Breitbart.com : Burning oil rig sinks into Gulf; 11 still missing</title>
<link>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F898C00&show_article=1#IDComment69834623</link>
<description>Exactly.  Cuba can subcontract with China to drill for oil 45 miles from Key West in the Gulf of Mexico.  It is okay for communist CHina to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico.  USA = bad.  Communists = good   </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2010 23:13:02 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F898C00&show_article=1#IDComment69834623</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Breitbart.com : Burning oil rig sinks into Gulf; 11 still missing</title>
<link>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F898C00&show_article=1#IDComment69834404</link>
<description>Nature did not &amp;quot;THINK&amp;quot;  to make the undersea reservoirs water tight.  Remember:  The ocean floors are MOVING.   One ocean is stretching, the other ocean is shrinking.  There are earthquakes.  Volcanoes.  Plate movements.  The oil that is under the sea bed will be exposed to cracks and chasms tha twill allow it to escape.  You are imagining a fantasy world of pristine oil-free nature which only man changes.  Wrong.  NATURE created the oil.  Man is only removing it. </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2010 23:11:27 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F898C00&show_article=1#IDComment69834404</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>