Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[francoHFW]

Only fake news says Clinton ignored any clues, dupe- unlike W. He was also busy defending himself against a tidal wave of GOP bs propaganda for 8 years. You and your party are a disgrace.

Dude, you are the one saying he knew ahead of time, go read your post!!! LOL! You don't know what the hell you post? Are you really as dumb as you appear to be?

Bush was totally incompetent. So much evidence of that, NOT for Clinton. DUH.

You brought it up dumb dumb. Clinton knew and did nothing. Pretty evident by the article YOU brought up, dumb dumb.

Clinton knew nothing about 9/11, it was too early for that...Booosh SHOULD have known but was incompetent DUH...

You posted where the government was predicting a 911 two years before it happened! So if it was too early, then why were they predicting it, two years before hand and if it was a government agency, how did Clinton not know, dumb dumb?

The Bush White House Was Deaf to 9/11 Warnings - The New York ...
www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/.../the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.h...
Sep 10, 2012 - On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, ...
September 11th Warning Signs Fast Facts - CNN.com
www.cnn.com/2013/07/27/us/september-11th-warning-signs-fast-facts/
Aug 31, 2016 - Read CNN's Fast Facts about the warning signs that preceded the terrorist attacks of September 11, ... Photos: New photos show Bush on 9/11.
CIA Director Documentary: 'The Attacks Will Be Spectacular ... - Politico
www.politico.com/magazine/story/.../cia-directors-documentary-911-bush-213353
Nov 12, 2015 - An exclusive look at how the Bush administration ignored this warning from the CIA months before 9/11, along with others that were far more detailed than previously revealed. ... “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” The CIA’s famous Presidential Daily Brief, presented to ...
September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/.../September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_th...
The 9/11 advance-knowledge conspiracy theories center on arguments that certain institutions .... The US administration, CIA and FBI received multiple prior warnings from foreign governments and ..... "Missed chance on way to 9/11".

 

[GWV5903]

So he knew they were thinking of it, but hadn't started doing it yet, ok? LOL. Booosh was asleep.

So you admit you have no clue, thanks for being so clear...

 

[MaryL]

I am poor. I used to be liberal. I see American politicians pandering... and I feel like Peggy Lee, asking: is that all there is... to politics?

 

[francoHFW]

So he knew they were thinking of it, but hadn't started doing it yet, ok? LOL. Booosh was asleep.

So you admit you have no clue, thanks for being so clear...

The Bush White House Was Deaf to 9/11 Warnings - The New York ...
www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/.../the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.h...
Sep 10, 2012 - On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, ...
September 11th Warning Signs Fast Facts - CNN.com
www.cnn.com/2013/07/27/us/september-11th-warning-signs-fast-facts/
Aug 31, 2016 - Read CNN's Fast Facts about the warning signs that preceded the terrorist attacks of September 11, ... Photos: New photos show Bush on 9/11.
CIA Director Documentary: 'The Attacks Will Be Spectacular ... - Politico
www.politico.com/magazine/story/.../cia-directors-documentary-911-bush-213353
Nov 12, 2015 - An exclusive look at how the Bush administration ignored this warning from the CIA months before 9/11, along with others that were far more detailed than previously revealed. ... “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” The CIA’s famous Presidential Daily Brief, presented to ...
September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/.../September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_th...
The 9/11 advance-knowledge conspiracy theories center on arguments that certain institutions .... The US administration, CIA and FBI received multiple prior warnings from foreign governments and ..... "Missed chance on way to 9/11".

 

[francoHFW]

I am poor. I used to be liberal. I see American politicians pandering... and I feel like Peggy Lee, asking: is that all there is... to politics?

Think Dem issues sometime, instead of the GOP giveaway to the rich and bs and gossip.

 

[SYTFE]

Thread title of the year contender right here...

Surprised this forum doesn't do annual awards like some other forums. Best thread, best debate, best thread title, n00b of the year, funniest poster, best troll, etc...

 

[Papageorgio]

Dude, you are the one saying he knew ahead of time, go read your post!!! LOL! You don't know what the hell you post? Are you really as dumb as you appear to be?

Bush was totally incompetent. So much evidence of that, NOT for Clinton. DUH.

You brought it up dumb dumb. Clinton knew and did nothing. Pretty evident by the article YOU brought up, dumb dumb.

Clinton knew nothing about 9/11, it was too early for that...Booosh SHOULD have known but was incompetent DUH...

You posted where the government was predicting a 911 two years before it happened! So if it was too early, then why were they predicting it, two years before hand and if it was a government agency, how did Clinton not know, dumb dumb?

So he knew they were thinking of it, but hadn't started doing it yet, ok? LOL. Booosh was asleep.

I got it, Clinton got the warning from the government agency that this could happen, but it was okay for him to ignore it. Man you are a stupid SOB dumb dumb.

 

[Papageorgio]

Dude, you are the one saying he knew ahead of time, go read your post!!! LOL! You don't know what the hell you post? Are you really as dumb as you appear to be?

Bush was totally incompetent. So much evidence of that, NOT for Clinton. DUH.

You brought it up dumb dumb. Clinton knew and did nothing. Pretty evident by the article YOU brought up, dumb dumb.

Clinton knew nothing about 9/11, it was too early for that...Booosh SHOULD have known but was incompetent DUH...

You posted where the government was predicting a 911 two years before it happened! So if it was too early, then why were they predicting it, two years before hand and if it was a government agency, how did Clinton not know, dumb dumb?

The Bush White House Was Deaf to 9/11 Warnings - The New York ...
www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/.../the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.h...
Sep 10, 2012 - On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, ...
September 11th Warning Signs Fast Facts - CNN.com
www.cnn.com/2013/07/27/us/september-11th-warning-signs-fast-facts/
Aug 31, 2016 - Read CNN's Fast Facts about the warning signs that preceded the terrorist attacks of September 11, ... Photos: New photos show Bush on 9/11.
CIA Director Documentary: 'The Attacks Will Be Spectacular ... - Politico
www.politico.com/magazine/story/.../cia-directors-documentary-911-bush-213353
Nov 12, 2015 - An exclusive look at how the Bush administration ignored this warning from the CIA months before 9/11, along with others that were far more detailed than previously revealed. ... “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” The CIA’s famous Presidential Daily Brief, presented to ...
September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/.../September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_th...
The 9/11 advance-knowledge conspiracy theories center on arguments that certain institutions .... The US administration, CIA and FBI received multiple prior warnings from foreign governments and ..... "Missed chance on way to 9/11".

Guy go back to your post where you linked that the government did nothing for two years, that part of it wasn't Bush it was Clinton, an you are a dense dumb dumb, do they get dumber than you?

 

[Skull Pilot]

uh huh.

Why do you think diabetes is an epidemic, esp. in black areas? DUH.

because the fat people CHOOSE to eat like crap

No, not all fat people choose to do it. Some are addicted, some have metabolism problems, and some just eat crap.

addiction is a choice.

sorry but no one is going to have the DTs from going cold turkey from sugar and real metabolism problems are the exception not the rule when it comes to people being fat

Such a great statement, such a contradictory statement. There is a certain amount of choice that goes into addiction, however some people have much more of an addictive personality than others.

I don't see what DTs have anything to do with anything here.

Like I've said multiple times, when people have sufficient reason to do something, they'll give stuff up to do that.

you do realize that stopping some addictive substances actually put the user into a health crisis don't you? Detoxing from alcohol can kill you

detoxing from sugar means you feel like you have a very mild case of the flu and it only lasts a couple days

and the people that keep choosing to eat ice cream for breakfast don't care if they are fat even though they know that eating fruit for breakfast is better for them

 

[Skull Pilot]

Tax policy as social engineering.

Already exists....

The question is why shouldn't you have social engineering, the right use it, the left use it, you probably even support it when it engineers what you want.

so just because it's used it's alright with you?

And it's not abut what you want. People have the right to choose what they want and what anyone wants is none of your of the government's business

No, that isn't what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying it exists already and you're probably fine with it being used in certain ways, you just don't realize that it is being used like that.

Yes, people have the right to choose what they want. At no point have I said people couldn't choose what they want.

This is about accepting the fact that the US has a major weight problem, and a major problem with sugar all over the place, and taxing things higher which cause problems. I understand that you have a problem with this, and I doubt I'm ever going to convince you of this. If I can't convince you of something when I have all the facts pointing to my argument and you have no facts, how am I going to convince you that sometimes you have to do the right thing?

I am in no way fine with taxes being used in social engineering experiments.

So called sin taxes should all be abolished. Cigarettes and alcohol should only be subject to sales taxes like any other product

no one should be taxed because they choose to eat the food they want to eat or drink what they want to drink or smoke what they want to smoke

And if you noticed I never disagreed with you on the fact that eating tons of sugar is not a good choice. I would never smoke either but it's none of my business if people do just like it's none of my business what other people choose to eat and it's none of yours and it certainly is none of the government's

Should alcohol be restricted to any age group, and if yes, why?
Should cigarettes be restricted to any age group, and if yes, why?
Should all the illegal drugs be restricted, if yes, why?
Should driving be restricted to any age group, and if yes, why?

Again, I'm not telling people that they can't do something. I'm suggesting that if people want to do something that they pay for it.

I have no problem with an age of majority but we should pick one
no you want them to pay EXTRA. You want the government to assign right or wrong labels to food choices and then assess a fine for those who choose the "wrong" thing

that is not the purpose nor the purview of government

 

[Wyatt earp]

I am in no way fine with taxes being used in social engineering experiments.

So called sin taxes should all be abolished. Cigarettes and alcohol should only be subject to sales taxes like any other product

no one should be taxed because they choose to eat the food they want to eat or drink what they want to drink or smoke what they want to smoke

And if you noticed I never disagreed with you on the fact that eating tons of sugar is not a good choice. I would never smoke either but it's none of my business if people do just like it's none of my business what other people choose to eat and it's none of yours and it certainly is none of the government's

Should alcohol be restricted to any age group, and if yes, why?
Should cigarettes be restricted to any age group, and if yes, why?
Should all the illegal drugs be restricted, if yes, why?
Should driving be restricted to any age group, and if yes, why?

Again, I'm not telling people that they can't do something. I'm suggesting that if people want to do something that they pay for it.

Which is the classic case why government should not have any control over our healthcare. Once they are able to control your healthcare, they would be able to control people just like you wish to do. How much they can drink, what they can drink, how much they can smoke, if they can smoke, how much exercise they should have, what kind of risky activities they should be allowed to have...............

Oh, and if you go outside of the perfect government standard according to liberals, you should have to pay for it dearly.........that's all!

Well no thank you. If you and your ilk cannot control our healthcare, you cannot control us.

Which is suggesting that the UK controls the healthcare of the people more than in the US. Wait, this is the US that prohibits under 21 years olds from drinking, in the UK they can drink at 18.... right.... er.... er.....

Just seen a post on Facebook, some girl who has a wheelchair has been told by the insurance company that if she ever uses the wheelchair out in the rain, or hours after it rains, or anything like this, then she broke the wheelchair and she has to pay for it. Reason why private companies shouldn't be involved in healthcare.

I see, so what you're doing is comparing an insurance company requesting a wheelchair owner take precautions using the chair compared to government telling you how to conduct every aspect of your life???

Is the insurance company insisting this wheelchair bound patient eat certain things, maintain a certain weight, prohibiting her from adult beverages or recreational narcotics, restricting her from certain physical activities????

The insurance company is not concerned about controlling ones life, they are concerned about not making unnecessary repairs to a wheelchair.

No, you're making a completely irrelevant claim in your first paragraph.

The insurance company is basically screwing people over for profit.

You can make claims about the govt being involved in healthcare, and I can make claims about private companies being involved in healthcare. Neither is ever going to be perfect.

The issue is that when private takes full control, lots of people get fucked over, when the govt takes over, you've made a claim that the govt will control every aspect of your life, which is bullshit, because anyone who knows anything about the outside world, beyond the borders of the US, will know this just isn't true. But you'll make the claim based on NOTHING anyway.

You really believe that his 1st paragraph is irrelevant don't you,?


Yup typical liberal ..that does not want to accept responsibility for his stupidly


Remind us again why a McDonald's coffee cup has the words




HOT on it?


You don't want to mention frivolous lawsuits do you? That drive up the cost of insurance

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why do you think diabetes is an epidemic, esp. in black areas? DUH.

because the fat people CHOOSE to eat like crap

No, not all fat people choose to do it. Some are addicted, some have metabolism problems, and some just eat crap.

addiction is a choice.

sorry but no one is going to have the DTs from going cold turkey from sugar and real metabolism problems are the exception not the rule when it comes to people being fat

Such a great statement, such a contradictory statement. There is a certain amount of choice that goes into addiction, however some people have much more of an addictive personality than others.

I don't see what DTs have anything to do with anything here.

Like I've said multiple times, when people have sufficient reason to do something, they'll give stuff up to do that.

you do realize that stopping some addictive substances actually put the user into a health crisis don't you? Detoxing from alcohol can kill you

detoxing from sugar means you feel like you have a very mild case of the flu and it only lasts a couple days

and the people that keep choosing to eat ice cream for breakfast don't care if they are fat even though they know that eating fruit for breakfast is better for them

So... what's your point?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Already exists....

The question is why shouldn't you have social engineering, the right use it, the left use it, you probably even support it when it engineers what you want.

so just because it's used it's alright with you?

And it's not abut what you want. People have the right to choose what they want and what anyone wants is none of your of the government's business

No, that isn't what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying it exists already and you're probably fine with it being used in certain ways, you just don't realize that it is being used like that.

Yes, people have the right to choose what they want. At no point have I said people couldn't choose what they want.

This is about accepting the fact that the US has a major weight problem, and a major problem with sugar all over the place, and taxing things higher which cause problems. I understand that you have a problem with this, and I doubt I'm ever going to convince you of this. If I can't convince you of something when I have all the facts pointing to my argument and you have no facts, how am I going to convince you that sometimes you have to do the right thing?

I am in no way fine with taxes being used in social engineering experiments.

So called sin taxes should all be abolished. Cigarettes and alcohol should only be subject to sales taxes like any other product

no one should be taxed because they choose to eat the food they want to eat or drink what they want to drink or smoke what they want to smoke

And if you noticed I never disagreed with you on the fact that eating tons of sugar is not a good choice. I would never smoke either but it's none of my business if people do just like it's none of my business what other people choose to eat and it's none of yours and it certainly is none of the government's

Should alcohol be restricted to any age group, and if yes, why?
Should cigarettes be restricted to any age group, and if yes, why?
Should all the illegal drugs be restricted, if yes, why?
Should driving be restricted to any age group, and if yes, why?

Again, I'm not telling people that they can't do something. I'm suggesting that if people want to do something that they pay for it.

I have no problem with an age of majority but we should pick one
no you want them to pay EXTRA. You want the government to assign right or wrong labels to food choices and then assess a fine for those who choose the "wrong" thing

that is not the purpose nor the purview of government

But then why do you want to do some good things for children, but then not do other good thing?

Yes, I want them to pay EXTRA. Just like people pay EXTRA for things already. Yes, I want the govt to say what is health and to say this is worthy of being cheaper.

You don't think this is the purpose of government, I do.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I have no problem with an age of majority but we should pick one
no you want them to pay EXTRA. You want the government to assign right or wrong labels to food choices and then assess a fine for those who choose the "wrong" thing

that is not the purpose nor the purview of government

At least not our government anyway. North Korea, Cuba, maybe places like that, but not in a free country.

And this is a reminder of why we should never surrender healthcare to our government. Cradle-to-Gravers think that government should be there to guide you through life from the time you wake up in the morning until the time you go to sleep. Left up to them, government would close down every last restaurant and bar across the nation.

The larger the government--the smaller the citizen.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Which is the classic case why government should not have any control over our healthcare. Once they are able to control your healthcare, they would be able to control people just like you wish to do. How much they can drink, what they can drink, how much they can smoke, if they can smoke, how much exercise they should have, what kind of risky activities they should be allowed to have...............

Oh, and if you go outside of the perfect government standard according to liberals, you should have to pay for it dearly.........that's all!

Well no thank you. If you and your ilk cannot control our healthcare, you cannot control us.

Which is suggesting that the UK controls the healthcare of the people more than in the US. Wait, this is the US that prohibits under 21 years olds from drinking, in the UK they can drink at 18.... right.... er.... er.....

Just seen a post on Facebook, some girl who has a wheelchair has been told by the insurance company that if she ever uses the wheelchair out in the rain, or hours after it rains, or anything like this, then she broke the wheelchair and she has to pay for it. Reason why private companies shouldn't be involved in healthcare.

I see, so what you're doing is comparing an insurance company requesting a wheelchair owner take precautions using the chair compared to government telling you how to conduct every aspect of your life???

Is the insurance company insisting this wheelchair bound patient eat certain things, maintain a certain weight, prohibiting her from adult beverages or recreational narcotics, restricting her from certain physical activities????

The insurance company is not concerned about controlling ones life, they are concerned about not making unnecessary repairs to a wheelchair.

No, you're making a completely irrelevant claim in your first paragraph.

The insurance company is basically screwing people over for profit.

You can make claims about the govt being involved in healthcare, and I can make claims about private companies being involved in healthcare. Neither is ever going to be perfect.

The issue is that when private takes full control, lots of people get fucked over, when the govt takes over, you've made a claim that the govt will control every aspect of your life, which is bullshit, because anyone who knows anything about the outside world, beyond the borders of the US, will know this just isn't true. But you'll make the claim based on NOTHING anyway.

Private insurance did not make regulations against not insuring people with preexisting conditions. Private insurance never insisted on minimum coverage such as a 58 year old woman being covered for prenatal care. Private insurance never insisted women have abortion coverage and birth control.. Government insisted on all these things and more.

Insurance companies under Commie Care cannot charge you more for coverage because you have preexisting conditions, but they can charge you more if you are a smoker.

Government has already demonstrated how much they will abuse their control over people way more than private insurance. To think they've only managed to have partial control over healthcare. Imagine what would happen if we ever gave them most or total control over our healthcare.

So, people born unlucky don't get fucked over, but those who make choices can be fucked over. Do you have a problem with this?

But then again on the NHS you get treated whether you smoke or don't smoke.

Correct, and if you don't march in lockstep like a good little Commie, you will have to pay extra to your government. But that's how these commie leftists have been able to ride around the constitution and states rights. Just steal their cash to force them into compliance.

 

[Skull Pilot]

because the fat people CHOOSE to eat like crap

No, not all fat people choose to do it. Some are addicted, some have metabolism problems, and some just eat crap.

addiction is a choice.

sorry but no one is going to have the DTs from going cold turkey from sugar and real metabolism problems are the exception not the rule when it comes to people being fat

Such a great statement, such a contradictory statement. There is a certain amount of choice that goes into addiction, however some people have much more of an addictive personality than others.

I don't see what DTs have anything to do with anything here.

Like I've said multiple times, when people have sufficient reason to do something, they'll give stuff up to do that.

you do realize that stopping some addictive substances actually put the user into a health crisis don't you? Detoxing from alcohol can kill you

detoxing from sugar means you feel like you have a very mild case of the flu and it only lasts a couple days

and the people that keep choosing to eat ice cream for breakfast don't care if they are fat even though they know that eating fruit for breakfast is better for them

So... what's your point?

the same one it's always been

fat people already know why they are fat and they choose to stay fat

 

[Skull Pilot]

so just because it's used it's alright with you?

And it's not abut what you want. People have the right to choose what they want and what anyone wants is none of your of the government's business

No, that isn't what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying it exists already and you're probably fine with it being used in certain ways, you just don't realize that it is being used like that.

Yes, people have the right to choose what they want. At no point have I said people couldn't choose what they want.

This is about accepting the fact that the US has a major weight problem, and a major problem with sugar all over the place, and taxing things higher which cause problems. I understand that you have a problem with this, and I doubt I'm ever going to convince you of this. If I can't convince you of something when I have all the facts pointing to my argument and you have no facts, how am I going to convince you that sometimes you have to do the right thing?

I am in no way fine with taxes being used in social engineering experiments.

So called sin taxes should all be abolished. Cigarettes and alcohol should only be subject to sales taxes like any other product

no one should be taxed because they choose to eat the food they want to eat or drink what they want to drink or smoke what they want to smoke

And if you noticed I never disagreed with you on the fact that eating tons of sugar is not a good choice. I would never smoke either but it's none of my business if people do just like it's none of my business what other people choose to eat and it's none of yours and it certainly is none of the government's

Should alcohol be restricted to any age group, and if yes, why?
Should cigarettes be restricted to any age group, and if yes, why?
Should all the illegal drugs be restricted, if yes, why?
Should driving be restricted to any age group, and if yes, why?

Again, I'm not telling people that they can't do something. I'm suggesting that if people want to do something that they pay for it.

I have no problem with an age of majority but we should pick one
no you want them to pay EXTRA. You want the government to assign right or wrong labels to food choices and then assess a fine for those who choose the "wrong" thing

that is not the purpose nor the purview of government

But then why do you want to do some good things for children, but then not do other good thing?

Yes, I want them to pay EXTRA. Just like people pay EXTRA for things already. Yes, I want the govt to say what is health and to say this is worthy of being cheaper.

You don't think this is the purpose of government, I do.

an age of majority is not doing good thing for children

it provides a framework for personal responsibility.

and being healthy is already cheaper than being unhealthy.

you can't see the difference of things having differing prices in the marketplace and the government taxing things based on an arbitrary right and wrong scale?

 

[rightwinger]

Bush left us open to attack

He made no effort to enhance antiterrorist protections despite being repeatedly warned about the threat......he had better things to do

3000 Americans died

Remain ignorant if it makes you feel better. But the CBS report I posted states differently, it's just that it doesn't fit in your "blame Republicans" for everything mantra. Nor does it support your left-wing brainwashing sites that I'm sure you frequent daily.

Want to blame Bush for 911? Fine, now let's see you blame Bill Clinton for the first WTC attacks. Let's see you blame Bill Clinton for the Oklahoma City bombing. Let's see you blame Bill Clinton for all the planning of 911 that went on while he was President.

What's that I hear.... crickets? I thought so.

Problem is, there is no evidence for that, while for Booosh and 9/11 there is plenty...

What a complete moron you fake teacher you. I just posted a report showing that Bush had no idea of the attack, and your stupidity tells you to say just the opposite of the report, making false claims of evidence you didn't (and won't) provide.

You are about as much of a retired teacher as I am a retired astronaut. How can you say such stupid things repeatedly and try to convince us that you're anything less than a welfare queen?

Why would I lie, ignoramus? BTW, you ought to try reading your own link- and there is plenty more like this. Booosh, Cheney, and Rummie were total incompetents like you...obnoxious too.

"White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that while President Bush was told last summer that bin Laden's al Qaeda network might hijack planes, "until the attack took place, I think it's fair to say that no one envisioned that [using planes as suicide bombs] as a possibility."

However, a federal report issued exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks contrasts with that statement.

The report, entitled the "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?," warned the executive branch that bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building.

It described the suicide hijacking as one of several possible retribution attacks al Qaeda might seek for the 1998 U.S. airstrike against bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan.

"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House," the September 1999 report said.

The report was written by the Federal Research Division, an arm of the Library of Congress that provides research for various federal agencies under contracts.

And it's come out that an agent in the FBI's Arizona office also speculated about using planes as weapons, writing in his case notes about Zacarias Moussaoui that Moussaoui seemed like the type of person who was capable of flying an aircraft into the World Trade Center.

It was the observation of an agent taking notes as he thought about his case - an observation whose significance simply did not register at the time.

Separately, the New York Times reports that an FBI agent in Arizona warned his superiors last summer that bin Laden might be sending students to U.S. flight schools.

The FBI failed to make a connection between that warning and the August arrest of Moussaoui - a French citizen of Moroccan descent detained in Minnesota after raising suspicions among his instructors at a flight school where he said he wanted to know how to fly, but not how to land or take off.

Moussaoui has emerged as the lone defendant charged in the aftermath of the attacks, which killed more than 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. He is charged with conspiring with bin Laden and the 19 suicide hijackers to attack Americans.

FBI Director Robert Mueller has said repeatedly that he wishes the FBI had acted more aggressively in addressing the Arizona and Minnesota leads. Mueller has also said that nothing the FBI possessed before Sept. 11 pointed to the plot."

Guess what- a policy wonk like Gore would have been all over this and the real estate bubble too. Great job, GOP and silly dupes like you...Presto no ME OR Wall St catastrophe.

If the reports were written two years before the attacks, why didn't Clinton have a plan in place? Seems to me if the threat was as serious as claimed, the Clinton administration would have been all over it and would have captured Bin Laden when he had been given the chance.

Clinton didn't have a chance that didn't involve slaughtering a thousand innocent civilians to capture a man who hadn't done anything yet

It was Bush who allowed bin laden to escape Tora Bora AFTER 9-11

 

[Skull Pilot]

Remain ignorant if it makes you feel better. But the CBS report I posted states differently, it's just that it doesn't fit in your "blame Republicans" for everything mantra. Nor does it support your left-wing brainwashing sites that I'm sure you frequent daily.

Want to blame Bush for 911? Fine, now let's see you blame Bill Clinton for the first WTC attacks. Let's see you blame Bill Clinton for the Oklahoma City bombing. Let's see you blame Bill Clinton for all the planning of 911 that went on while he was President.

What's that I hear.... crickets? I thought so.

Problem is, there is no evidence for that, while for Booosh and 9/11 there is plenty...

What a complete moron you fake teacher you. I just posted a report showing that Bush had no idea of the attack, and your stupidity tells you to say just the opposite of the report, making false claims of evidence you didn't (and won't) provide.

You are about as much of a retired teacher as I am a retired astronaut. How can you say such stupid things repeatedly and try to convince us that you're anything less than a welfare queen?

Why would I lie, ignoramus? BTW, you ought to try reading your own link- and there is plenty more like this. Booosh, Cheney, and Rummie were total incompetents like you...obnoxious too.

"White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that while President Bush was told last summer that bin Laden's al Qaeda network might hijack planes, "until the attack took place, I think it's fair to say that no one envisioned that [using planes as suicide bombs] as a possibility."

However, a federal report issued exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks contrasts with that statement.

The report, entitled the "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?," warned the executive branch that bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building.

It described the suicide hijacking as one of several possible retribution attacks al Qaeda might seek for the 1998 U.S. airstrike against bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan.

"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House," the September 1999 report said.

The report was written by the Federal Research Division, an arm of the Library of Congress that provides research for various federal agencies under contracts.

And it's come out that an agent in the FBI's Arizona office also speculated about using planes as weapons, writing in his case notes about Zacarias Moussaoui that Moussaoui seemed like the type of person who was capable of flying an aircraft into the World Trade Center.

It was the observation of an agent taking notes as he thought about his case - an observation whose significance simply did not register at the time.

Separately, the New York Times reports that an FBI agent in Arizona warned his superiors last summer that bin Laden might be sending students to U.S. flight schools.

The FBI failed to make a connection between that warning and the August arrest of Moussaoui - a French citizen of Moroccan descent detained in Minnesota after raising suspicions among his instructors at a flight school where he said he wanted to know how to fly, but not how to land or take off.

Moussaoui has emerged as the lone defendant charged in the aftermath of the attacks, which killed more than 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. He is charged with conspiring with bin Laden and the 19 suicide hijackers to attack Americans.

FBI Director Robert Mueller has said repeatedly that he wishes the FBI had acted more aggressively in addressing the Arizona and Minnesota leads. Mueller has also said that nothing the FBI possessed before Sept. 11 pointed to the plot."

Guess what- a policy wonk like Gore would have been all over this and the real estate bubble too. Great job, GOP and silly dupes like you...Presto no ME OR Wall St catastrophe.

If the reports were written two years before the attacks, why didn't Clinton have a plan in place? Seems to me if the threat was as serious as claimed, the Clinton administration would have been all over it and would have captured Bin Laden when he had been given the chance.

Clinton didn't have a chance that didn't involve slaughtering a thousand innocent civilians to capture a man who hadn't done anything yet

It was Bush who allowed bin laden to escape Tora Bora AFTER 9-11

actually he did have a chance but he was spineless or too busy getting blow jobs

Bill Clinton and the missed opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden

 

[Cecilie1200]

Should alcohol be restricted to any age group, and if yes, why?
Should cigarettes be restricted to any age group, and if yes, why?
Should all the illegal drugs be restricted, if yes, why?
Should driving be restricted to any age group, and if yes, why?

Again, I'm not telling people that they can't do something. I'm suggesting that if people want to do something that they pay for it.

Which is the classic case why government should not have any control over our healthcare. Once they are able to control your healthcare, they would be able to control people just like you wish to do. How much they can drink, what they can drink, how much they can smoke, if they can smoke, how much exercise they should have, what kind of risky activities they should be allowed to have...............

Oh, and if you go outside of the perfect government standard according to liberals, you should have to pay for it dearly.........that's all!

Well no thank you. If you and your ilk cannot control our healthcare, you cannot control us.

Which is suggesting that the UK controls the healthcare of the people more than in the US. Wait, this is the US that prohibits under 21 years olds from drinking, in the UK they can drink at 18.... right.... er.... er.....

Just seen a post on Facebook, some girl who has a wheelchair has been told by the insurance company that if she ever uses the wheelchair out in the rain, or hours after it rains, or anything like this, then she broke the wheelchair and she has to pay for it. Reason why private companies shouldn't be involved in healthcare.

I see, so what you're doing is comparing an insurance company requesting a wheelchair owner take precautions using the chair compared to government telling you how to conduct every aspect of your life???

Is the insurance company insisting this wheelchair bound patient eat certain things, maintain a certain weight, prohibiting her from adult beverages or recreational narcotics, restricting her from certain physical activities????

The insurance company is not concerned about controlling ones life, they are concerned about not making unnecessary repairs to a wheelchair.

No, you're making a completely irrelevant claim in your first paragraph.

The insurance company is basically screwing people over for profit.

You can make claims about the govt being involved in healthcare, and I can make claims about private companies being involved in healthcare. Neither is ever going to be perfect.

The issue is that when private takes full control, lots of people get fucked over, when the govt takes over, you've made a claim that the govt will control every aspect of your life, which is bullshit, because anyone who knows anything about the outside world, beyond the borders of the US, will know this just isn't true. But you'll make the claim based on NOTHING anyway.

Private insurance did not make regulations against not insuring people with preexisting conditions. Private insurance never insisted on minimum coverage such as a 58 year old woman being covered for prenatal care. Private insurance never insisted women have abortion coverage and birth control.. Government insisted on all these things and more.

Insurance companies under Commie Care cannot charge you more for coverage because you have preexisting conditions, but they can charge you more if you are a smoker.

Government has already demonstrated how much they will abuse their control over people way more than private insurance. To think they've only managed to have partial control over healthcare. Imagine what would happen if we ever gave them most or total control over our healthcare.

Exactly right. My husband and I have the same employer, and we have EXACTLY THE SAME COVERAGE. Why? We don't have even remotely the same bodies or medical histories. Why do I pay for coverage for Viagra and prostate exams? Why does he pay for coverage for mammograms and PAP smears? Why are we both paying for coverage for birth control?

I am so grateful that we have an incredible employer who went to the expense and effort of offering a variety of coverage choices, instead of one-size-fits-all to whoever was the lowest bidder. At least we have the option of getting as close as possible to a basic minimum, catastrophic care plan with an HSA.