Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[frigidweirdo]

Processed food is fattening, unhealthy crap. Look at the packaging. Sugary crap. All you can buy in the inner city.

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.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The problem here is that people CAN do things cheaper, but they need to be EDUCATED in how to do things, this is becoming a cycle of you compartmentalizing things and then dismissing them all, but then finding out that what you said shouldn't happen is what should happen to deal with the next thing.

you don't have to educate people about what they already know

you want to get educated on food prices then get your ass to the supermarket and look around

you don't need some government program for that

Well, you're wrong.

Firstly, what "people know" is usually full of mistruths, things that are plain wrong, assumptions and the like. Secondly what they know will be on the basic level, and not on a detailed level, and sometimes this isn't enough to encourage people to do something about it.

I've changed my eating habits lately because I've found stuff out that disturbs me. I know sugar is bad for me, but I ate it anyway. Why? Because I could get away with it. What I wasn't considering was the sugar not only makes people fat, it causes other problems that I did not know about, and for that reason and other issues involving diabetes because a family member was told they'd get diabetes and they didn't get it because they went on a strict diet, when their father had got diabetes.

You're trying to make this issue as simple as possible. It's not just about food prices. Hence why education is needed. No doubt you could learn a lot, you just haven't.

So here's for some education.

Sugar and what it does to your brain.

It leads to hyperactivity.
It leads to yeast growth, things like eczema, throat infections and ear infections. So if you have these problems it could potentially be because of too much sugar.
It hinders the absorption of vitamin B into your body. Vitamin B helps regulate your blood sugar levels. It also reduces the amount of oxygen going to the brain and it increase adrenaline in your body. The impact of these are forgetfulness, mood swings and other negative issues.

I had a look at McDonald's food calculator and a medium sized milkshake has 200% the daily recommended value for sugar for a 7-10 year old. A Big Mac has 33%. You go take kids on a trip to McDonalds and you could be giving them a massive dose of sugar 300% or more of their daily recommended value for just one meal. Then add that to the other two meals and snacks in a day and you might be looking at 600% daily recommended value. Imagine what this does to a kid's education. They're going to suffer at school, not meet their potential. You see all these kids that are overweight.

Childhood Obesity Facts | Overweight & Obesity | CDC

36.5% of American adults are overweight. Probably a large portion of these take too much sugar in their daily lives.
12.7 million children are obese.

"The prevalence of obesity among children aged 2 to 5 years decreased significantly from 13.9% in 2003-2004 to 9.4% in 2013-2014."

The rate is lowering. However it's not surprising that the highest rates of obesity are in the places with the worst education

you have no idea what I know about nutrition and what I have learned I learned without some government program to tell me.

everyone already knows what's healthy and what's not. Even you admitted that. So wasting money telling people what to eat is not going to change anything

No, I don't. That wasn't the point I was making. The point is that most people don't know what I just wrote.

Just because you learned what you learned without a govt program, doesn't mean that others can't learn from govt programs, or that govt programs aren't effective.

You keep pounding on that everyone knows. I keep telling you that people know basics and it's often not enough, which is clear when 1/3 of US people are OBESE. You think people want to be obese? I grew up with a girl who struggled her ass off to not be overweight and failed miserably, and the main reason was her parents didn't know shit about how to stop her from eating shit. He whole life has been a struggle, and it's not her fault. Education would have changed this.

You seem to think education is bad, and you can see what poor education is doing to the US, and it's not positive.

yes it is her fault.

you will do anything to say people aren't responsible for the choices they make

my mother ate like crap and fed us crap but when I was a teenager I made a different choice and stopped eating crap. I started exercising all by choice.

even your fat friend knew when she was a teenager than diet and exercise was the way to lose weight

No, it wasn't her fault. She was obese as a child. Children aren't considered responsible for their actions, especially at a younger age.

You made the choice to stop eating crap and exercising by choice, and of course, every human being is just like you. Everyone has the same thoughts, the same problems, it's all the same, one size fits all, right?

Maybe she knew that people said that diet and exercise was the way forward, and she wanted to lose weight, but she couldn't. Why not?

But then again dealing with one individual doesn't help this case.

Countries Compared by Health > Obesity. International Statistics at NationMaster.com

Obesity rates.

1) USA 30.6%
2) Mexico 24.2%
3) UK 23%
4) Slovenia 22.4%
14) Germany 12.9%

I included Germany. Why? Because Germany is a country which is conscientious about things. Why does Germany have a much lower obesity rate than the US?

Sugary drinks tax - Wikipedia

Denmark has had such a tax since the 1930s. Denmark has a rate of 9.5% for obesity.

Hungary introduced such a tax in 2011 and "has seen 22% of people reduce energy drink consumption and 19% of people reduce their intake of sugary-sweetened soft-drinks"

Why would 22% of people reduce energy drink consumption simply because of a rise in the cost? Choice?

Sugar tax: financially regressive but progressive for health?

"Research published in the British Medical Journal in January indicated that Mexico’s introduction of a 10% levy on sugar-sweetened drinks on 1 January 2014 led to a 10% fall in sales by the end of that year."

"Hungary provides much stronger evidence that food taxes do work. Its public health products tax, which came into force in September 2011......For example 30% have reduced their consumption of pre-packaged sweets, 22% of energy drinks and 19% of sugar-sweetened soft drinks."

 

[Cecilie1200]

Processed food is fattening, unhealthy crap. Look at the packaging. Sugary crap. All you can buy in the inner city.

uh huh.

Does Franco really think that there are no stores selling produce and fresh meat in cities?

yes he actually believes that there are no supermarkets in any city in the USA

Black areas, stupid. Same reason they have to borrow cars from dealers to get there, hater dupes.
Search Results
Food Deserts: Where Have All the Inner-City Grocery Stores Gone ...
News, Sports, Weather, Entertainment, Local & Lifestyle - AOL...
Apr 4, 2012 - Food Deserts: Where Have All the Inner-City Grocery Stores Gone? ... which leaves the neighborhood without convenient access to groceries.►
[PDF]The Grocery Gap - The Food Trust
thefoodtrust.org/uploads/media_items/grocerygap.original.pdf
by R Beebe - ‎Related articles
without grocery stores and other fresh food retailers ... where there is little or no access to healthy and ...... grocery leakage in inner-city neighborhoods.135.
Supermarket shortage - Wikipedia
Supermarket shortage - Wikipedia
Supermarket shortages have been identified in many American urban neighborhoods, and such gaps in food access have been closely correlated with diet-related diseases such as cancer, obesity, and diabetes. The shortage began when many supermarkets left mixed-income central city ... Studies by the Initiative for a Competitive Inner City in Boston found that ...
‎Causes · ‎Community issues · ‎Racial issues · ‎Case studies
Where Have All The Inner-City Grocery Stores Gone? - Business Insider
www.businessinsider.com/where-have-all-the-inner-city-grocery-stores-gone-2012-4
Apr 4, 2012 - No light at the end of the aisle. ; ... It's not just a Windy City problem. ... Americans have low access to supermarkets or large grocery stores.
Why are there no grocery stores in poor neighborhoods? - Marginal ...
marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/11/why-are-there-n.html
Nov 16, 2007 - Living in an inner city has its downsides, to say the least, but at least you don't have to buy a car. Yet the modern grocery store is designed for ...
Urban areas struggle to find grocers, fresh food - Health - Diet and ...
www.nbcnews.com/id/28300393/ns/.../urban-areas-struggle-get-grocers-fresh-food/
Dec 18, 2008 - Inner city 'food deserts' are instead loaded with fast food and fatty snacks ... In the poorest parts of the city, a grocery store or a sit-down restaurant can ... or three miles and ride it back with tons of stuff on it, oh no," said Lozoya.
Neighborhood Disparities in Access to Healthy Foods and Their ...
Neighborhood Disparities in Access to Healthy Foods and Their Effects on Environmental Justice
by A Hilmers - ‎2012 - ‎Cited by 86 - ‎Related articles
Fair treatment signifies that “no population, due to policy or economic ... residences to playgrounds,24 and the accessibility of supermarkets and grocery stores,25,26 but fewer ..... Race and food store availability in an inner-city neighbourhood.

yeas there is no public transportation either

Yes, we need to listen to someone writing articles about how oppressed black people are, rather than going to Google and actually LOOKING to see if there's anything.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well surely controlling them for the good of others assumes they're too stupid to realize that someone doesn't want to be murdered and that they need the nanny state to tell them not to murder, or some religion to tell them.

The problem we have here is that we're not talking about telling people what they can and can't do. We're simply stating that healthy things have less tax on them than things that are not so healthy so that people can make a choice. You know, I could murder or I could not murder... hmm... well I might go to prison or be executed if I murder, so I'm not going to do it. I could buy a snickers or I could buy a salad, both are okay, however the snickers is cheaper, I'll take that as I don't have much money, oh, wait, the salad is now cheaper, maybe i'll go for that.

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think the overall message here is that my bias against the LDS church should probably equate to a bias against most churches.

I'm curious why you have such a special hate for Mormon's. They're really good people.

He hates religious people. He just happens to live in an area where most of the religious people are Mormons.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

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.

 

[Wyatt earp]

40 million baby boomers retiring kind of kills your theory

Can we talk about stay at home moms, the handicapped and students now?

only the mentally or physically handicapped are due government assistance. Students are students by choice. moms are moms by choice.

And families would be able to survive on one income, and have stay-at-home moms, if the government weren't so intent on picking everyone's pockets to give money away.

Don't even get me started on the government's encouraging of the proliferation of single mothers.

One of the seemingly defining qualities of conservatives is that they misidentify 'the enemy' about 90% of the time. We didn't evolve into a society where two breadwinners are the norm because of government. It's because of the constant pressure that corporations put on increasing profitability.

Totally wrong. In the 60's most households were single income. In the later 60's and into the 70's, it was the feminists that pushed for working moms, single-parent households, and professional women in the workplace.

It started seemingly harmless. The moment taught women that they were raised to be slaves by their fathers who's only worth in life was to bear children and give the man the family he felt he deserved. But that was just the beginning. It became more radicalized as time went on.

The feminists kept pushing for women to brake the shackles that restricted them from real life. Real life had much more to offer than give a man children and wait on him hand and foot. Not long after, women entered the workplace family or not. Divorce became commonplace to otherwise secure families. Women were living the dream they were told was possible by viewing the man as a sperm donor and nothing more.

The women who stayed with the family enjoyed the extra income and the things the extra money could buy. The new single mothers needed every dime they could get to raise their children because of course they took over the position of their husbands by being the main breadwinner.

And there you have it. Feminism is how we evolved into a two-income family. Today, more women graduate college than men. Most office buildings and industrial areas are equipped with daycare centers for mothers to let other people raise their children while they go to work.

SURE they do. Wrong as always, unicorny dupe.
Why Are Companies Abandoning On-Site Day Care? - Bloomberg
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/.../why-are-companies-abandoning-on-site-day-car...
Sep 6, 2016 - Only 3 percent of organizations offer unsubsidized day care services, ... of moms return towork after maternity leave, a stat that the company ...

http://jezebel.com/on-site-daycare-is-disappearing-as-a-company-perk-1786324865

Good moms should be at home raising the children you liberals fucked everything thing up...

 

[Billo_Really]

Good moms should be at home raising the children you liberals fucked everything thing up...

We fucked a lot of good moms to!

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

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.

 

[GWV5903]

Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

Interesting article and much of it chimes with what we see in the UK.

It has to be coated with a thin veneer of religion to make it acceptable but in essence right wing politics is based on a selfish me me me doctrine. DISCUSS

A Socialist commenting on a Republic that has out performed the monarchy if fought to leave, you need to stick with tidally winks...

The EU is slowly crumbling under their own self inflicted pressure, it's time they pay the cost to defend themselves, they lack any appreciation for what we have sacrificed for their livelihood...

 

[Papageorgio]

So you got no answer, thanks for the stupidity.

Duh.
Richard A. Clarke - Wikipedia
Richard A. Clarke - Wikipedia
Jump to Bush administration - Clarke and his communications with the Bush ... No longer would Clarke'smemos go to the President; instead they had to ...
‎Background · ‎Government career · ‎9/11 Commission · ‎Post government career
Ex-Counterterrorism Czar Richard Clarke: Bush, Cheney and ...
https://www.democracynow.org/2014/.../ex_counterterrorism_czar_richard_clarke_b...
Jun 2, 2014 - former top counterterrorism official under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush before resigning in 2003 in protest of the Iraq War.
Donald Trump, George W. Bush, and Responsibility for 9/11 - The ...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/...george-w-bush.../411175/
Oct 19, 2015 - George W. Bush didn't do all he could to prevent the attack—and it's time ... National Security Council counterterrorism “czar” Richard Clarke ...
Unheeded Warnings: George W. Bush and 9/11 | The National Interest
nationalinterest.org/feature/unheeded-warnings-george-w-bush-9-11-14122
Oct 17, 2015 - ... experts including Richard Clarke, then still in the White House as an .... However, the administration of George W Bush completely ignored ...
Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror: Richard A ...
Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror: Richard A. Clarke: 9780743260459: Amazon.com: Books
Clarke, a veteran Washington insider who had advised presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, andGeorge W. Bush, dissects each man's approach to ...
CNN.com - Former antiterror adviser says Bush ignored 9/11 warnings ...
www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/clarke.bush/index.html?PHPSESSID...
Mar 23, 2004 - Former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke joins ... CNN's Kathleen Koch on how President Bush warns that John Kerry will ...

Again, your claim is 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.

If you can't answer the question or don't understand the question or just want to play stupid, it is all good with me. You are confirming what everyone already knows.

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.

 

[Papageorgio]

Lorenzo is not worth Phil Jackson's time, so he probably has talent, but do you really want to deal with his father's baggage?

All I can say is...

Lonzo the Laker.................and..................what can we get for Russell?

Even with Lonzo the Lakers have a long way too go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

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.

 

[francoHFW]

Duh.
Richard A. Clarke - Wikipedia
Richard A. Clarke - Wikipedia
Jump to Bush administration - Clarke and his communications with the Bush ... No longer would Clarke'smemos go to the President; instead they had to ...
‎Background · ‎Government career · ‎9/11 Commission · ‎Post government career
Ex-Counterterrorism Czar Richard Clarke: Bush, Cheney and ...
https://www.democracynow.org/2014/.../ex_counterterrorism_czar_richard_clarke_b...
Jun 2, 2014 - former top counterterrorism official under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush before resigning in 2003 in protest of the Iraq War.
Donald Trump, George W. Bush, and Responsibility for 9/11 - The ...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/...george-w-bush.../411175/
Oct 19, 2015 - George W. Bush didn't do all he could to prevent the attack—and it's time ... National Security Council counterterrorism “czar” Richard Clarke ...
Unheeded Warnings: George W. Bush and 9/11 | The National Interest
nationalinterest.org/feature/unheeded-warnings-george-w-bush-9-11-14122
Oct 17, 2015 - ... experts including Richard Clarke, then still in the White House as an .... However, the administration of George W Bush completely ignored ...
Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror: Richard A ...
Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror: Richard A. Clarke: 9780743260459: Amazon.com: Books
Clarke, a veteran Washington insider who had advised presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, andGeorge W. Bush, dissects each man's approach to ...
CNN.com - Former antiterror adviser says Bush ignored 9/11 warnings ...
www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/clarke.bush/index.html?PHPSESSID...
Mar 23, 2004 - Former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke joins ... CNN's Kathleen Koch on how President Bush warns that John Kerry will ...

Again, your claim is 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.

If you can't answer the question or don't understand the question or just want to play stupid, it is all good with me. You are confirming what everyone already knows.

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...

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

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.

 

[Papageorgio]

Again, your claim is 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.

If you can't answer the question or don't understand the question or just want to play stupid, it is all good with me. You are confirming what everyone already knows.

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?

 

[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?

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

 

[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?

How bout this one? Booooshies were INCOMPETENT. No alert status at ALL.
James Woods See Terrorists