Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[rightwinger]

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

The GOP gave him a tidal wave of BS propaganda saying he was wagging the dog. Stupid assholes ALWAYS. Horror of the Western World catastrophe...

so he was spineless thank you

Republicans mocked the pursuit of terrorism

 

[Doc1]

By cruel I'm guessing you mean not wanting to buy them everything you think we should.

 

[francoHFW]

Bush was an incompetent disaster in every possible way. They weren't worried about an attack, they wanted an excuse to get Saddam. Nobody can be that incompetent. Cheney and Rummy again...

 

[Papageorgio]

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

Dumb dumb is blaming Bush for 911 and saying he could of prevented it. He cites an article that stated that a government bureau said a suicide bombers would be a probability. So the government agency had the info during Clinton's administration but he didn't act on it, yet he blames Bush for ignoring two year old warning. Give me a break! Dumb dumb is being really stupid. He cites it and then excuses one but not the other? What a dumb dumb.

He had all kinds of warnings and ignored them, stupid. He was a disaster in every possible way.
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 - Unheeded Warnings: George W. Bush and 9/11. Leaving .... December 4, 1998: Clinton Warned 'Bin Laden Preparing to Hijack US ... 4, 1998 ...
CIA Director Documentary: 'The Attacks Will Be Spectacular ... - Politico
www.politico.com/magazine/story/.../cia-directors-documentary-911-bush-213353
Nov 12, 2015 - ... administration ignored this warning from the CIA months before 9/11, ... director (lasting seven years, under Presidents Clinton and Bush II).
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 - But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both ...
Donald Trump says CIA warned George W. Bush of Sept. 11 attacks ...
www.politifact.com/truth-o.../trump-says-cia-warned-president-bush-9-11-attacks/
Oct 21, 2015 - Donald Trump, seen here at the second GOP debate, said President George W. Bush failed to heed CIA warnings of the 9/11 attacks. (AP).
September 11 intelligence before the attacks - Wikipedia
September 11 intelligence before the attacks - Wikipedia
In aftermath of the September 11 attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. by the ... 1 Clinton era report; 2 April 2001 Massoud speech; 3 Bush era reports ... Massoud was assassinated by al-Qaeda two days before the 9/11 attacks on ... Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that ...
Clinton: I warned Bushabout bin Laden threat - WND.com
www.wnd.com/2003/10/21299/
Oct 16, 2003 - Clinton told the audience his inability to convince Bush of the danger posed by al-Qaida represented “one of the two ... While he may have warned his successor, various reports suggest ... Government's 'Fatal Neglect' on 9-11.

Again dumb dumb, it was your link that showed that Clinton didn't give a shit about terrorism and ignored the government agency that told of a need to worry about suicide planes. Not my fault you ignore the facts. You keep blathering stupidity and won't address your link, you are a dumb dumb, do you need some gum gum dumb dumb?

Clinton went after terrorism

Republicans accused him of trying to distract the public from their blowjob investigation

According to Franco's link he didn't take it up with Franco.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservative ideology towards the poor is that poverty should be as painful as possible.

Yes it is, and that's because we instinctively know that people will react to pain; do what it takes to make the pain stop.

Nobody does anything to relieve comfort, and that's why we have the problem with the poor today.

So that's why there's no poverty in Mexico, where very little is done to help the poor?

 

[BlueGin]

This is how liberals help the poor...by stealing the food out of their mouths.

DSS case worker charged with fraud

That link doesn't say anything about her ideology, but says a lot about yours.

Look...more helpful government workers stealing from the poor.

Social Security workers among five charged in welfare-fraud scheme

Maybe we can post some stories about rich people cheating on their taxes

That's where the money is

This is how liberals help the elderly and disabled ...well the ones they don't abort and pull the plug on anyway....

Good for stealing their identities to help clients claim them illegally as dependants on their taxes.

Social Worker Pleads Guilty to Identity Theft, Tax Crimes

If nanny government bureaucrats were parents, they'd be the ones who never taught their children to fend for themselves. They make excuses for everything and never want to hold anyone accountable for their actions. When someone else suggests that the best way to cut the umbilical cord is to allow the child to learn some lessons to help them grow, they are called cruel.

What's cruel is encouraging a person to depend on others their entire lives and preach victimhood to ensure they never stop being angry long enough to think for themselves.

The left took a minor problem and turned it into a huge problem just to benefit themselves. Liberals are cruel.

Exactly why we have a whole generation of whiney,entitled professional college students and 20 something's.

 

[francoHFW]

That link doesn't say anything about her ideology, but says a lot about yours.

Look...more helpful government workers stealing from the poor.

Social Security workers among five charged in welfare-fraud scheme

Maybe we can post some stories about rich people cheating on their taxes

That's where the money is

This is how liberals help the elderly and disabled ...well the ones they don't abort and pull the plug on anyway....

Good for stealing their identities to help clients claim them illegally as dependants on their taxes.

Social Worker Pleads Guilty to Identity Theft, Tax Crimes

If nanny government bureaucrats were parents, they'd be the ones who never taught their children to fend for themselves. They make excuses for everything and never want to hold anyone accountable for their actions. When someone else suggests that the best way to cut the umbilical cord is to allow the child to learn some lessons to help them grow, they are called cruel.

What's cruel is encouraging a person to depend on others their entire lives and preach victimhood to ensure they never stop being angry long enough to think for themselves.

The left took a minor problem and turned it into a huge problem just to benefit themselves. Liberals are cruel.

Exactly why we have a whole generation of whiney,entitled professional college students and 20 something's.

Everyone's fault but the do nothing, pander to the rich New BS GOP, right, dupe?

After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Conservative ideology towards the poor is that poverty should be as painful as possible.

Yes it is, and that's because we instinctively know that people will react to pain; do what it takes to make the pain stop.

Nobody does anything to relieve comfort, and that's why we have the problem with the poor today.

So that's why there's no poverty in Mexico, where very little is done to help the poor?

There is a difference between people that are poor because they have no other option and people who are poor because they decided to be poor.

With the exception of those who have physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from working, you won't find many so-called poor in this country that became impoverished through no fault of their own. In most cases, it was bad decision making and irresponsibility that brought them to poverty. In other cases, it's location that they don't wish to correct by moving to where the jobs are.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Conservative ideology towards the poor is that poverty should be as painful as possible.

Yes it is, and that's because we instinctively know that people will react to pain; do what it takes to make the pain stop.

Nobody does anything to relieve comfort, and that's why we have the problem with the poor today.

So that's why there's no poverty in Mexico, where very little is done to help the poor?

There is a difference between people that are poor because they have no other option and people who are poor because they decided to be poor.

With the exception of those who have physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from working, you won't find many so-called poor in this country that became impoverished through no fault of their own. In most cases, it was bad decision making and irresponsibility that brought them to poverty. In other cases, it's location that they don't wish to correct by moving to where the jobs are.

You are soooo right!

More often than not, that poverty is due to personal choices....

Just reading a tribute to the recently passed journalist, Jimmy Breslin, I found this particularly grating passage:
"A total urbanite, Jimmy had never learned how to drive—he was raised by a single mother who earned a meager salary as a social worker, and drank to excess. The Breslins couldn’t afford a car."
Jimmy Breslin, RIP



WHAT????

"The Breslins couldn’t afford a car."
But...." he was raised by a single mother who .... drank to excess."

I guess that 'drink' was free, huh????




This is the sort of absurdity that guides so many and, so many of our social pretenses.

"couldn't afford a car" ...or would rather have a buzz on much of the time????
It was a choice! A decision by the decision maker in the family.
Just as abortions are the choice between sexual restraint, or the ending of a separate and unique life so as to enjoy that moment of passion.

 

[Billo_Really]

If nanny government bureaucrats were parents, they'd be the ones who never taught their children to fend for themselves. They make excuses for everything and never want to hold anyone accountable for their actions. When someone else suggests that the best way to cut the umbilical cord is to allow the child to learn some lessons to help them grow, they are called cruel.

What's cruel is encouraging a person to depend on others their entire lives and preach victimhood to ensure they never stop being angry long enough to think for themselves.

The left took a minor problem and turned it into a huge problem just to benefit themselves. Liberals are cruel.

Name one problem conservatives have admitted causing?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Conservative ideology towards the poor is that poverty should be as painful as possible.

Yes it is, and that's because we instinctively know that people will react to pain; do what it takes to make the pain stop.

Nobody does anything to relieve comfort, and that's why we have the problem with the poor today.

So that's why there's no poverty in Mexico, where very little is done to help the poor?

There is a difference between people that are poor because they have no other option and people who are poor because they decided to be poor.

With the exception of those who have physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from working, you won't find many so-called poor in this country that became impoverished through no fault of their own. In most cases, it was bad decision making and irresponsibility that brought them to poverty. In other cases, it's location that they don't wish to correct by moving to where the jobs are.

You are soooo right!

More often than not, that poverty is due to personal choices....

Just reading a tribute to the recently passed journalist, Jimmy Breslin, I found this particularly grating passage:
"A total urbanite, Jimmy had never learned how to drive—he was raised by a single mother who earned a meager salary as a social worker, and drank to excess. The Breslins couldn’t afford a car."
Jimmy Breslin, RIP



WHAT????

"The Breslins couldn’t afford a car."
But...." he was raised by a single mother who .... drank to excess."

I guess that 'drink' was free, huh????




This is the sort of absurdity that guides so many and, so many of our social pretenses.

"couldn't afford a car" ...or would rather have a buzz on much of the time????
It was a choice! A decision by the decision maker in the family.
Just as abortions are the choice between sexual restraint, or the ending of a separate and unique life so as to enjoy that moment of passion.

That kind of reminds me of my neighbor three doors down. The guy is in his mid 50's and hasn't had a full-time job as long as I've known him. Basically his mother supports him. The guy is too much of a drunk to work.

He used to get a couple days of work here and there accepting help on construction sites, but after he earned enough money for a month of drinking, that was the end of the job.

He finally made a disability claim on one of those jobs, and now he doesn't even do that. He just sits home waiting for his drinking money by the mailbox.

His mother is older and sickly, and who knows how long she will live. But after she's gone, he will be homeless. Even if she leaves him the house, there is no way he could afford the utilities, the taxes, the upkeep, the insurance because his mother used to take care of all those things. She even fed him.

When that time comes, he will get no sympathy from me. He's had plenty of time to make changes in his life, but he continues to choose living life day by day.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Conservative ideology towards the poor is that poverty should be as painful as possible.

Yes it is, and that's because we instinctively know that people will react to pain; do what it takes to make the pain stop.

Nobody does anything to relieve comfort, and that's why we have the problem with the poor today.

So that's why there's no poverty in Mexico, where very little is done to help the poor?

There is a difference between people that are poor because they have no other option and people who are poor because they decided to be poor.

With the exception of those who have physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from working, you won't find many so-called poor in this country that became impoverished through no fault of their own. In most cases, it was bad decision making and irresponsibility that brought them to poverty. In other cases, it's location that they don't wish to correct by moving to where the jobs are.

You are soooo right!

More often than not, that poverty is due to personal choices....

Just reading a tribute to the recently passed journalist, Jimmy Breslin, I found this particularly grating passage:
"A total urbanite, Jimmy had never learned how to drive—he was raised by a single mother who earned a meager salary as a social worker, and drank to excess. The Breslins couldn’t afford a car."
Jimmy Breslin, RIP



WHAT????

"The Breslins couldn’t afford a car."
But...." he was raised by a single mother who .... drank to excess."

I guess that 'drink' was free, huh????




This is the sort of absurdity that guides so many and, so many of our social pretenses.

"couldn't afford a car" ...or would rather have a buzz on much of the time????
It was a choice! A decision by the decision maker in the family.
Just as abortions are the choice between sexual restraint, or the ending of a separate and unique life so as to enjoy that moment of passion.

That kind of reminds me of my neighbor three doors down. The guy is in his mid 50's and hasn't had a full-time job as long as I've known him. Basically his mother supports him. The guy is too much of a drunk to work.

He used to get a couple days of work here and there accepting help on construction sites, but after he earned enough money for a month of drinking, that was the end of the job.

He finally made a disability claim on one of those jobs, and now he doesn't even do that. He just sits home waiting for his drinking money by the mailbox.

His mother is older and sickly, and who knows how long she will live. But after she's gone, he will be homeless. Even if she leaves him the house, there is no way he could afford the utilities, the taxes, the upkeep, the insurance because his mother used to take care of all those things. She even fed him.

When that time comes, he will get no sympathy from me. He's had plenty of time to make changes in his life, but he continues to choose living life day by day.

That, in microcosm, is the Liberal welfare policy.

1. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Such should be the epitaph of Liberalism.
2. ‘Welfare’ as a wholly owned subsidiary of the government, and its main result is the incentivizing of a disrespect for oneself, and for the entity that provides the welfare. As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.
   1. Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence. From Peter Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” chapter five.

 

[rightwinger]

The Republicans do not hate the poor......but they need them

Can't have middle class outrage against the rich
But the poor make a great scapegoat........the middle class suffers because some poor guy has a cell phone

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Republicans do not hate the poor......but they need them

Can't have middle class outrage against the rich
But the poor make a great scapegoat........the middle class suffers because some poor guy has a cell phone

Let's remember.....the Democrats both create the poor.....and maintain that poverty.


I see that today isn't the day you think before you post.

 

[rightwinger]

The Republicans do not hate the poor......but they need them

Can't have middle class outrage against the rich
But the poor make a great scapegoat........the middle class suffers because some poor guy has a cell phone

Let's remember.....the Democrats both create the poor.....and maintain that poverty.


I see that today isn't the day you think before you post.

Republicans have propped up the wealthy since Reagan trickle down

Break the unions, reduce competition, hold back wages
A scared workforce is not in a position to demand more pay

Then, blame the poor because workers are struggling

 

[francoHFW]

After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?

Both, obviously. I know, a giant tax cut for the rich! Ay caramba...stupidest, most hateful voters in the world. Great job, GOP.

 

[francoHFW]

The Republicans do not hate the poor......but they need them

Can't have middle class outrage against the rich
But the poor make a great scapegoat........the middle class suffers because some poor guy has a cell phone

Let's remember.....the Democrats both create the poor.....and maintain that poverty.


I see that today isn't the day you think before you post.

Republicans have propped up the wealthy since Reagan trickle down

Break the unions, reduce competition, hold back wages
A scared workforce is not in a position to demand more pay

Then, blame the poor because workers are struggling

Not to mention most expensive college costs, training programs and loans ever. Great job. And letting infrastructure go for 35 years now. We may be a banana republic any day now...

 

[rightwinger]

The Republicans do not hate the poor......but they need them

Can't have middle class outrage against the rich
But the poor make a great scapegoat........the middle class suffers because some poor guy has a cell phone

Let's remember.....the Democrats both create the poor.....and maintain that poverty.


I see that today isn't the day you think before you post.

Republicans have propped up the wealthy since Reagan trickle down

Break the unions, reduce competition, hold back wages
A scared workforce is not in a position to demand more pay

Then, blame the poor because workers are struggling

Not to mention most expensive college costs, training programs and loans ever. Great job. And letting infrastructure go for 35 years now. We may be a banana republic any day now...

A scared, hungry worker is not in a position to negotiate better wages

Republican paradise

 

[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.

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?

Uh huh?

I'm not getting your logic.

It's not okay to stop kids from drinking because it's good for them, but it's okay to stop people doing stuff to instill personal responsibility?

So, why not put up sales tax on sugary items to teach people to be more personally responsible for their own bodies then?

Being healthy could be cheaper, but people have to know how to do things, and have things incentivized, and it works, as shown with Mexico and Hungary.

I just don't get why doing something good shouldn't happen, but doing it for the wrong reasons is okay. Your logic is a little twisted in my view.

I never said anything about anything being good for anyone. A legal age of majority is a concept that implies neither good or bad it designates when a member of society is considered responsible for his actions that is all it is

and since when did a drinking age stop under aged kids from drinking?

It's not up to you to "teach" people anything. People will decide what they want to learn and if they don't want to learn what you want them to learn then it's none of your business.

but then again you already agreed that people already know that fruits and vegetables are better for them than a candy bar or a tub of ice cream so you don't have to teach them that.

What you want to do is control other people's behavior to align with what YOU think they should do.

So, kids should decide what they want to learn, or don't want to learn? Again, another crazy concept from the world of keeping people stupid.

We're going around on circles on this one, there isn't much point in carrying on. I get your point, you think that society is far, far below the individual, that the individual rules supreme and that society shouldn't invest in individuals in order to make society better for everyone.

I don't get it.

Now, the funny thing is, it's the right that will tell people how they have to give up their rights for the good of society. How we have to ban Muslims from coming in because it's for the good of the country, how we should stop people taking drugs for the good of the country. And then they'll turn around and say exactly what you have said. That it's all about the individual. Gets confusing.
Where do you stand on Muslims, drugs etc?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

So, just to get things clear, you have a problem with people who are born unlucky being treated fairly? You want them to suffer and to pay more just to exist?

You're talking about stealing? Well, that's exactly what private healthcare companies are doing every day of the year.

Blaming luck for your situation is about the same as blaming some rich guy you never met

This has got to be one THE most stupid ******* things you've ever said.

A few examples. A girl down my street when I was a kid was born into a family of well to do people, but she want's born right. According to you it must be her ******* fault that she came out wrong. She can't really work well, she can't learn well, she does some program in a supermarket for people such as herself to make them feel valued in society and not just be outcasts unwanted. She could never, ever hold down a proper job, it's impossible, she wasn't born right. But again, you think it's her fault.

1/4 of people have mental problems. My family has a history of mental problems, and one person in my family doesn't work, could do the work but struggles being around people and this led to her quitting jobs, going off sick and then unable to get new jobs, because who wants a person with such a medical record, hey? But yeah, according to you it's all her ******* fault.

so now a birth defect is the same as choosing to be fat?

No one chooses to be handicapped or mentally retarded.

But we were talking about people being born unlucky. So why have you suddenly decided to change the topic of conversation to something completely different?