OT: Election/Politics thread, Part 6

[JackB1]

How about something that prevents airplanes from being hijacked and flown into our tallest buildings in our largest cities?

When was the last time that happened? 7 years 1 month 24 days ago. I believe they have a handle on it.

I hope you are right in your assumption, Jack. But how many years was it before it happened on 9/11/01? Bush thought he "had a handle on it" back then and ignored the warnings from his advisors. They still aren't screening all the cargo that gets carried with every passenger plane.

[Jared]

Palin-Jindal '12

Rob,

Are you really rooting for the ticket above? Even with stuff like this coming out?

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MWZHTJsR4Bc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

Smith: Now that the election is over, Carl, tell us more about those reports of infighting between Palin and McCain staffers.

Cameron: I wish I could have told you more at the time but all of it was put off the record until after the election. There was great concern in the McCain campaign that Sarah Palin lack the degree of knowledgeability necessary to be a running mate, a vice president, and a heartbeat away from the presidency. We’re told by folks that she didn’t know what countries were in NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, that being the Canada, the US, and Mexico. We’re told she didn’t understand that Africa was a continent rather than a country just in itself … a whole host of questions that caused serious problems about her knowledge ability. She got very angry at staff, thought that she was mishandled…..was particularly angry about the way the Katie Couric interview went. She didn’t accept preparation for that interview when the aides say that that was part of the problem. And that there were times that she was hard to control emotionally there’s talk of temper tantrums at bad news clippings...

[Jackdog]

That's great for your family, but the millions of uninsured Americans who are either unemployed or work for employers that don't offer health coverage can't get full BCBS coverage for $175 a month. (I agree that opening up that type of scheme to the public would probably work better than national health care reform that would involve massive transaction costs and bitter opposition from special interests.) In 2001, the average cost of group insurance for family COBRA coverage was approximately $7,000 a year.

I saw some "media analyst" being interviewed on Fox News this morning claiming that only 8 - 15 million Americans were uninsured, which is odd given that the 47 million figure that is often quoted comes from the US Census Bureau. Of course, the Fox News anchor let the lie pass without question or comment.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf

Obama sounds like he wants to push the plan I mentioned.

So these are challenging times. That's why I spent last week talking about immediate steps we need to take to provide working Americans with relief. A broad-based, middle class tax cut, to help offset the rising cost of gas and food. A foreclosure prevention fund, to help stabilize the housing market. A health care plan that lowers costs and gives those without health insurance the same kind of coverage members of Congress have.

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/06/16/r ... bam_79.php

Like I said in my other post,I would much rather see this than the goverment taking over the system.

[JackB1]

First off brother,we are winning the fight by killing terrorist. Our soldiers have done a incredible job in Iraq since the surge. The soldiers aren't just "There". They have a mission and it's just about complete.

What exactly is the "mission" now that is almost complete? We just agreed to stay in Iraq until 2011. And then, there is still no guarantee that the Iraqi's will be able to handle things there by themselves.

Secondly I do not want goverment involved im my families healthcare.

That's totally your right and it won't change with Obama. He is letting everyone who is happy with their current coverage keep it as is.

It's great coverage and it cost about what most of you guys spend on gaming a month.

That is a great deal...but you deserve that and much more for your service to our country.

If you have stats on the number of Americans dropping dead because of real poverity I'd like to see them. I'm not talking about durg addicted poverity or self inflected poverity. I am talking third world country poverity. Please post a link on that.

I meant all those things collectively. Just cancer alone kills over 500,000 Americans each year. It's very tough to pinpoint how many die from poverty, because poverty by itself leads to so many things that will in the end, cause death... like unemployment, homelessness, disease, crime, etc. I know for sure it's leading to more deaths in this country than terrorists ever will.

[Jackdog]

How about something that prevents airplanes from being hijacked and flown into our tallest buildings in our largest cities?

When was the last time that happened? 7 years 1 month 24 days ago. I believe they have a handle on it.

I hope you are right in your assumption, Jack. But how many years was it before it happened on 9/11/01? Bush thought he "had a handle on it" back then and ignored the warnings from his advisors. They still aren't screening all the cargo that gets carried with every passenger plane.

I think your wrong about screening the cargo. It all get's x rayed and a once over by the dogs. I know that for a fact. My brother in law does that for a living at Boston's Logan airprot. You keep blaming Bush,yet you seem to leave out Clinton and all the others that put this on the back burner. Remember who was in office when the first attack on the WTC happened?

9/11 happened under Bush,but not another attack has happened since. I'll give him credit for that. Bush is gone in Jan. Idiots that want to kill us aren't. Whatever Bush has done to protect or country since 9/11 has worked. I hope Obama can have the same success. If not I expect to see you critcize him in the same manner you have on Bush and the subject of Homeland security.

I honestly don't blame anyone for 9/11 and any other attacks on our country except the assholes that did it and the assholes behind it.

[XXXIV]

[. If not I expect to see you critcize him in the same manner you have on Bush and the subject of Homeland security.

Dont bet on it. My guess is if an attack happens in 3-20 years it will have something to do with Bush.

[Jackdog]

[. If not I expect to see you critcize him in the same manner you have on Bush and the subject of Homeland security.

Dont bet on it. My guess is if an attack happens in 3-20 years it will have something to do with Bush.

[matthewk]

I meant all those things collectively. Just cancer alone kills over 500,000 Americans each year. It's very tough to pinpoint how many die from poverty, because poverty by itself leads to so many things that will in the end, cause death... like unemployment, homelessness, disease, crime, etc. I know for sure it's leading to more deaths in this country than terrorists ever will.

So are you suggesting that we ignore the terrorists until after we find a cure for cancer?

BTW, I am still waiting for you to address my response to the health care post.

[JackB1]

9/11 happened under Bush,but not another attack has happened since. I'll give him credit for that. Bush is gone in Jan. Idiots that want to kill us aren't. Whatever Bush has done to protect or country since 9/11 has worked. I hope Obama can have the same success. If not I expect to see you critcize him in the same manner you have on Bush and the subject of Homeland security.

So how about giving ALL the previous Presidents credit for not having any attacks during their terms? Bush was asleep at the wheel and we as a country paid a HUGE price for it and it's effects are still being felt today.

And you are 100% wrong about not criticising Obama or any other future President than fails to act appropriately on behalf of our country. You have only seen my political postings here since Bush has been in office, so how do you know what I thought prior or will think in the future? I really don't care about a President's party lines, as long as he does what's best for us. If Obama screws up, I will not defend him.

[matthewk]

Is Obama's mention of giving people the same helth plan option that congress gets the same thing as the "other option" he mentioned for healthcare if people don't want to stick with their employer provided plan?

If that's the case, then everyone where I work will likely jump over to the plan congress gets. I pay about $400 a month for family coverage, and that doesn't include the copays and deductables.

It sounds great until you have 75% of the country on that plan. Who pays for difference? If it's our governemt, then it all coems right back to us in increased taxes.

I'm hopful for a better system that reduces our costs. I think our care is top-notch, it's the costs that I have issue with.

[matthewk]

So how about giving ALL the previous Presidents credit for not having any attacks during their terms? Bush was asleep at the wheel and we as a country paid a HUGE price for it and it's effects are still being felt today.

And you are 100% wrong about not criticising Obama or any other future President than fails to act appropriately on behalf of our country. You have only seen my political postings here since Bush has been in office, so how do you know what I thought prior or will think in the future? I really don't care about a President's party lines, as long as he does what's best for us. If Obama screws up, I will not defend him.

I'm guessing that his impression comes from how you never mention anything wrong with anyone in government other than Bush or his administration.

Take this last post of yours as an example. You ask about giving prior presidents credit and then slam Bush. You never mention the 1994 (right year?) bombing and Clinton's failure to nip Bin Laden in the bud then. We did have attacks under prior pesidents, but you completly gloss over that like they never happened.

[JackB1]

I'm guessing that his impression comes from how you never mention anything wrong with anyone in government other than Bush or his administration.

Uhhhhhh...that might have something to do with the fact that I have only been posting in this political thread while Bush has been in office.

Take this last post of yours as an example. You ask about giving prior presidents credit and then slam Bush. You never mention the 1994 (right year?) bombing and Clinton's failure to nip Bin Laden in the bud then. We did have attacks under prior pesidents, but you completly gloss over that like they never happened.

Excuse me for focusing on the President that is currently in office. Should I go back and review every President's performance going back to Washington? The 1993 bombing of the WTC, which was a car bomb going off in the basement of the WTC killed 6 people. How can you possibly compare these 2 events? The bombers pulled a van into a parking lot underneath the WTC, lit the fuse and took off. You want to blame Clinton for that, then fine. Later investigations determined the Port Authority responsible for the bombing.....not the President of the US.

[wco81]

Don't vets get VA coverage?

I haven't followed the health care debate that closely during the campaign but I think Obama's plan was less drastic than Clinton's and neither plan was as drastic as the one they tried to do in the '90s.

I'm sure members of Congress don't have to worry about too many out of pocket costs or preauthorizations or restricted procedures.

Probably not as costs-conscious as most employer-provided plans.

[GameSeven]

Later investigations determined the Port Authority responsible for the bombing.....not the President of the US.

Last I checked, terrorists were responsible for the bombing.

Since my cousin was a PANYNJ rescuer *during* the first WTC bombing and ultimately gave his life in the second, I resent your wording in the strongest manner.

That said, to completely disassociate the two events demonstrates a particular naivete about the nature of those who perpetrated the attacks.

[XXXIV]

Last I checked, terrorists were responsible for the bombing.

That does seem to get lost when people choose to put their own politics before everything else.

[matthewk]

I'm guessing that his impression comes from how you never mention anything wrong with anyone in government other than Bush or his administration.

Uhhhhhh...that might have something to do with the fact that I have only been posting in this political thread while Bush has been in office.

But you have made comments on topics that go back further than the Bush years, and yet you only only mention him. Again, look below as a perfect example.

Take this last post of yours as an example. You ask about giving prior presidents credit and then slam Bush. You never mention the 1994 (right year?) bombing and Clinton's failure to nip Bin Laden in the bud then. We did have attacks under prior pesidents, but you completly gloss over that like they never happened.

Excuse me for focusing on the President that is currently in office. Should I go back and review every President's performance going back to Washington? The 1993 bombing of the WTC, which was a car bomb going off in the basement of the WTC killed 6 people. How can you possibly compare these 2 events? The bombers pulled a van into a parking lot underneath the WTC, lit the fuse and took off. You want to blame Clinton for that, then fine. Later investigations determined the Port Authority responsible for the bombing.....not the President of the US.

You were the one that made the statement proposing we should give credit to ALL prior presidents for not having ANY attacks. 1993 was an attack during a time when Bush was not president.

How can you compare them? Really?

[Naples39]

The 1993 bombing of the WTC, which was a car bomb going off in the basement of the WTC killed 6 people. How can you possibly compare these 2 events? The bombers pulled a van into a parking lot underneath the WTC, lit the fuse and took off. You want to blame Clinton for that, then fine. Later investigations determined the Port Authority responsible for the bombing.....not the President of the US.

In 1993, the terrorists successfully executed their plot to destroy the world trade center. Turns out it was a poorly conceived plot.

In 2001, the terrorists successfully executed their plot to destroy the world trade center. This plan more effective than the first plot.

Because the 2001 plan was 'better,' the blame goes entirely to the sitting president there, but because it was 'bad' plan in 1993 Clinton is blameless? Interesting.

[JackB1]

So are you suggesting that we ignore the terrorists until after we find a cure for cancer?

Of course not. But we need to prioritise and use our military in the most efficient manner. Like PK said...a strong economy can be just as effective as a M16.

[RobVarak]

Palin-Jindal '12

Rob,

Are you really rooting for the ticket above? Even with stuff like this coming out?

My tongue is planted in cheek, although I do think that Palin's a remains a legitimate player.

I'm giving very little weight to these "leaks." Not only is it typical losing campaign mudslinging and recrimination, but you have the additional animosity from the Lieberman boosters who were close to McCain from his earlier days being particularly embittered that the GOP blocked that move.

We have a couple years to sort out what she's really about. I've said this before, but her image is substantailly better than Reagan's was for years before he was elected. Hell, even while he was in office people thought he was stupid then senile...conclusions which have been authoritatively dispelled by the release of his diaries and correspondence.

I'm not saying that she's Reagan, btw. Just that politicians' images are not always accurate representations of the people. She may very well be back.

Jindal walks on water though.

[JackB1]

Later investigations determined the Port Authority responsible for the bombing.....not the President of the US.

Last I checked, terrorists were responsible for the bombing.

Since my cousin was a PANYNJ rescuer *during* the first WTC bombing and ultimately gave his life in the second, I resent your wording in the strongest manner.

That said, to completely disassociate the two events demonstrates a particular naivete about the nature of those who perpetrated the attacks.

I am very sorry about your cousin, but you are putting words in my mouth. I never "completely disassociated" the 2 events. They were both orchestrated by Al Queda with the intent of bringing down the towers.
The one on 9/11 had devastating...far reaching impacts, while the earlier attempt in '93, while just as horrible in intent, didn't cause nearly the same amount of damage. IMO, because we already had one attempt on the WTC, PLUS all the advance warnings that were ignored, all the more blame is deservedly Bush's. You have the right to disagree, but that's just my opinion.

[JackB1]

Last I checked, terrorists were responsible for the bombing.

That does seem to get lost when people choose to put their own politics before everything else.

I was merely reporting the findings of the post bombing investigations.
We are talking about 2 different things here. One is the party responsible for physically performing the act (Al Queda) and Two is the party responsible for letting it occur.

Bush supporters constantly bring up Clinton whenever their man is criticised. I don't understand what that adds to the discussion?

[JackB1]

Because the 2001 plan was 'better,' the blame goes entirely to the sitting president there, but because it was 'bad' plan in 1993 Clinton is blameless? Interesting.

Who ever said he was "blameless". You guys sure like to make an awful lot of assumptions. Not discussing something doesn't = no blame. Why must every issue that is brought up be deflected?

[JackB1]

Last I checked, terrorists were responsible for the bombing.

This is what I was referring to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World ... er_bombing

(Clipped from Wikipedia)
"Legal responsibility:
The victims of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings sued the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for damages. A decision was handed down in 2006, assigning liability for the bombings to the Port Authority. The decision declared that the agency was 68 percent responsible for the bombing, and the terrorists bore only 32 percent of the responsibility. In January 2008, the Port Authority asked a five-judge panel of the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan to throw out the decision, describing the jury's verdict as "bizarre".[32] On April 29, 2008, a New York State Appeals Court unanimously upheld the jury's verdict. Under New York law once a defendant is more than 50 percent at fault, he/she/it can be held fully financially liable.[33]

It has been argued that the problem with the apportionment of responsibility in the case is not the jury's verdict, but rather New York's tort-reform-produced state apportionment law. Traditionally courts do not compare intentional and negligent fault. When the Port Authority's very duty was to take care to prevent terrorist attacks, it makes no sense to diminish the Port Authority's liability because a terrorist attack took place. The Restatement Third of Torts: Apportionment of Liability recommends a rule to prevent juries from having to make nonsensical comparisons like the terrorist-Port Authority comparison in this case. However, if a jurisdiction does compare these intentional and negligent torts courts' second-best position is to do just what the NYS Appeals Court did -- to uphold all jury apportionments, even those that assign greater, or perhaps far greater, responsibility to negligent than intentional parties.[34]"

[wco81]

Saw an exit poll of Republican voters and their choice for '12 now would be Romney, Huckabee and then Palin.

[Naples39]

Please no more Palin.