Yeah. The isn't anyone on handouts that doesn't want to work. They are all out actively seeking a job. If you have a job you probably don't meet people like that.
They have to be otherwise they don't get their welfare checks (the rule is 50% have to be working for the statutory limit). Look up welfare reform bill passed twelve years ago.
Also, total welfare allocation is limited to five years.
Go back and read my entire post -- I added a bit...
So you aren't actually safe...
Clinton had directed programs at reducing their ability to access funds. He lobbed a few missiles towards bin laden. He even started the intelligence network that didn't exist to look for these events. To say he did nothing is to ignore the fact that he did everything the Republican congress would let him, and the missiles lobbed were called a distraction.
Regardless, Bush has done worse than nothing. He has created an environment in which the martyr's cause is more attractive. It is an idiotic way to fight a war against an enemy that thinks it is an affront to their god...
They have to be otherwise they don't get their welfare checks (the rule is 50% have to be working for the statutory limit). Look up welfare reform bill passed twelve years ago.
Also, total welfare allocation is limited to five years.
Yeah they have to go in and apply. I own a business and get people coming in to get an application. Ask them if they want to sit down and fill it out. No i will take it and return it later. They don't try to look halfway presentable or act like they really want a job. 5 years is crazy.
Yeah they have to go in and apply. I own a business and get people coming in to get an application. Ask them if they want to sit down and fill it out. No i will take it and return it later. They don't try to look halfway presentable or act like they really want a job. 5 years is crazy.
No. They have to work 20-30 hours per week.
I think you are confusing unemployment with welfare. Unemployment is far shorter, but has social benefits that are obvious -- what happens to you if you lose your job because of layoffs? Should you be cast adrift with no way to even maintain a semblance of life?
Welfare is an entirely different program than unemployment. One goes on welfare when one cannot find work because one doesn't have the skills or mental capacity to find work -- in the first case there are welfare programs designed to train people, in the second, welfare serves as a (poor) way to provide for mentally deficient individuals' survival which is coupled eventually to social security disability...
Do you understand why we have welfare, and unemployment? Does it make sense to you that it is better to have a large (15%) fraction of the population fed and housed than it would be to have them living on the street?
As for the appearance of someone who is unemployed... Imagine if you have been on the edge of society for long enough that you are nearly homeless, do you think you are going to be all that presentable? And surely not everyone who comes in to ask for an application to work looks unpresentable, now do they? How do you know who is on unemployment or welfare benefits?
I'm sure it will be tried again and may be successful. I guess we should just let them be so they can build up another good plan. What makes you think that the second one would have happened if we would have kicked the shit out of them the first time? Clinton did nothing.
Clinton launched missile strikes against Osama bin Laden in Sudan and Afghanistan. Unfortunately Osama wasn't there on either occasion.
?the Republicans backed him to the hilt didn't they?
Bush did nothing before 9/11. Then cocked up nearly everything after the event.
But I guess that doesn't quite fit with how you remember it. Mission accomplished, WMD, Saddam had a secret Al Qaeda fraternity pin? right?
Clinton launched missile strikes against Osama bin Laden in Sudan and Afghanistan. Unfortunately Osama wasn't there on either occasion.
?the Republicans backed him to the hilt didn't they?
Bush did nothing before 9/11. Then cocked up nearly everything after the event.
But I guess that doesn't quite fit with how you remember it. Mission accomplished, WMD, Saddam had a secret Al Qaeda fraternity pin? right?
Bush ahd been on the job less than 9 months. The planning for 9/11 went on while Clinton was busy commiting adultery.
Didn't realize this was such a socialist forum. Should have know it was packed with geeks and wimps. I am gone now. You guys can cry in your pee pants.
Bush ahd been on the job less than 9 months. The planning for 9/11 went on while Clinton was busy commiting adultery.
Didn't realize this was such a socialist forum. Should have know it was packed with geeks and wimps. I am gone now. You guys can cry in your pee pants.
Er, um, Socialist?
Seriously is this name calling all that the Conservative's of the US have left?
The planning for 9/11 went on while Clinton was busy commiting adultery.
…and whilst Bush was holidaying at the ranch.
At least Clinton was on the job, in both meanings of the word.
Quote:
Didn't realize this was such a socialist forum. Should have know it was packed with geeks and wimps. I am gone now. You guys can cry in your pee pants.
I can't follow how the Republicans get to constantly claim superiority on this given they seem to be constantly found with their pants down whether it is in public toilets, foreign policy or economics.
Hit and run seems your best option when this is the level of your reasoning.
Ah, the American right-- always ready to party like it's 1959.
Switch "communist" for "socialist" and "terrorist" and you literally wouldn't be able to tell if if a given remark is from the Republican Party of the 50s or now.
There have been two international terrorist attacks on the United States in its history.
I imagine you refer the first WTC attack (2/26/93) as the first and 9/11 as the 2nd.
Re. the first WTC attack, try entering the name Emad Salem into a search engine. Most especially, read Ralph Blumenthal's New York Times article from October 1993, and FBI taped transcripts of interviews with Mr.Salem, which clearly point to the 2/26 WTC operation being not simply an attack by "foreign terrorists", as portrayed in the media, but an attack in which one or more foreigners (middle easterners) were used as patsies by parties unknown who forced the issue with the FBI.
Quote:
These two attacks were separated by eight years (1993 and 2001). What makes you think we aren't going to be attacked again if it took al qaeda eight years to try again?
The WTC attacks of 9/11 were way more sophisticated, and completely out of pattern for anything that "al qaeda" has done, or attempted to do, before or since. Their M.O. has always been simple: to plant bombs on (usually) soft targets and then set them off. Successfully boarding and then hijacking 4 commercial jets, then flying them around for up to an hour and a half in the world's most scrutinized and policed airspace, with impunity, is not the AQ methodology, and never has been.
The attackers successfully evaded the standard response from the US military that morning, indicating prior knowledge of privileged/classified information re. the air defenses' non-response, for at least a 90 minute period while the attacks were ongoing.... otherwise they would have taken their planes directly to their intended targets, rather than a lengthy jaunt all the way to Kentucky and Ohio (!!!!) before the return flights (in the case of AA77 and UA93 respectively).
Perhaps the attackers knew that the standard procedure (which had worked flawlessly for years prior) had been changed in June 2001, requiring personal authorization by the Secretary of Defense for interception and engagement of rogue airplanes. The old protocol was reinstated on September 12, 2001.
Quote:
Al qaeda is in a stronger position now than they have been in the 2000s because of Bush's botched efforts in Afghanistan and the simple fact that the Iraqi battlefield has been an excellent training ground for new terrorists, which it never was when Saddam was in power.
That is, if "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is a real group. Any insurgent group has been caught up in the "al qaeda in Iraq" label: it's easy and it neatly pigeonholes the opposition for the nondiscerning reader/watcher/listener.
Quote:
Yeah, we're taking the battle to them alright. Training them, and expecting them not to hit back. Who was it again that equipped the Mujahideen which produced both the Taliban and al qaeda? Oh right... the US. Who gave Saddam his weapons? Right the US. Seems to me that our foreign policy in all of this has been short sighted, and Bush's wars are no exception.
That should have been your first paragraph! The rest would then be redundant.
There has been no proof of such which would stand up in a real US court of law. Kangaroo courts, aka "military tribunals", perhaps, but that's the M.O. of uncivilized nations, and their verdicts should be taken with a very large portion of salt.
Quote:
but the neocons made sure they succeeded in destroying people's freedoms.
Robert: You're not going to convince these people anything. They want the world to be more like the EU, and it's pretty much a religion. Go have a beer.
Comments
Yeah. The isn't anyone on handouts that doesn't want to work. They are all out actively seeking a job. If you have a job you probably don't meet people like that.
They have to be otherwise they don't get their welfare checks (the rule is 50% have to be working for the statutory limit). Look up welfare reform bill passed twelve years ago.
Also, total welfare allocation is limited to five years.
So you aren't actually safe...
Clinton had directed programs at reducing their ability to access funds. He lobbed a few missiles towards bin laden. He even started the intelligence network that didn't exist to look for these events. To say he did nothing is to ignore the fact that he did everything the Republican congress would let him, and the missiles lobbed were called a distraction.
Regardless, Bush has done worse than nothing. He has created an environment in which the martyr's cause is more attractive. It is an idiotic way to fight a war against an enemy that thinks it is an affront to their god...
They have to be otherwise they don't get their welfare checks (the rule is 50% have to be working for the statutory limit). Look up welfare reform bill passed twelve years ago.
Also, total welfare allocation is limited to five years.
Yeah they have to go in and apply. I own a business and get people coming in to get an application. Ask them if they want to sit down and fill it out. No i will take it and return it later. They don't try to look halfway presentable or act like they really want a job. 5 years is crazy.
Yeah they have to go in and apply. I own a business and get people coming in to get an application. Ask them if they want to sit down and fill it out. No i will take it and return it later. They don't try to look halfway presentable or act like they really want a job. 5 years is crazy.
No. They have to work 20-30 hours per week.
I think you are confusing unemployment with welfare. Unemployment is far shorter, but has social benefits that are obvious -- what happens to you if you lose your job because of layoffs? Should you be cast adrift with no way to even maintain a semblance of life?
Welfare is an entirely different program than unemployment. One goes on welfare when one cannot find work because one doesn't have the skills or mental capacity to find work -- in the first case there are welfare programs designed to train people, in the second, welfare serves as a (poor) way to provide for mentally deficient individuals' survival which is coupled eventually to social security disability...
Do you understand why we have welfare, and unemployment? Does it make sense to you that it is better to have a large (15%) fraction of the population fed and housed than it would be to have them living on the street?
Anyway, I am done... need to sleep...
I'm sure it will be tried again and may be successful. I guess we should just let them be so they can build up another good plan. What makes you think that the second one would have happened if we would have kicked the shit out of them the first time? Clinton did nothing.
Clinton launched missile strikes against Osama bin Laden in Sudan and Afghanistan. Unfortunately Osama wasn't there on either occasion.
?the Republicans backed him to the hilt didn't they?
Bush did nothing before 9/11. Then cocked up nearly everything after the event.
But I guess that doesn't quite fit with how you remember it. Mission accomplished, WMD, Saddam had a secret Al Qaeda fraternity pin? right?
Clinton launched missile strikes against Osama bin Laden in Sudan and Afghanistan. Unfortunately Osama wasn't there on either occasion.
?the Republicans backed him to the hilt didn't they?
Bush did nothing before 9/11. Then cocked up nearly everything after the event.
But I guess that doesn't quite fit with how you remember it. Mission accomplished, WMD, Saddam had a secret Al Qaeda fraternity pin? right?
Bush ahd been on the job less than 9 months. The planning for 9/11 went on while Clinton was busy commiting adultery.
Didn't realize this was such a socialist forum. Should have know it was packed with geeks and wimps. I am gone now. You guys can cry in your pee pants.
Bush ahd been on the job less than 9 months. The planning for 9/11 went on while Clinton was busy commiting adultery.
Didn't realize this was such a socialist forum. Should have know it was packed with geeks and wimps. I am gone now. You guys can cry in your pee pants.
Er, um, Socialist?
Seriously is this name calling all that the Conservative's of the US have left?
Er, um, Socialist?
Seriously is this name calling all that the Conservative's of the US have left?
I liked "pee pants."
Reckon brains has really gone? Hope not. He's sweet.
Bush ahd been on the job less than 9 months.
…and we know what a slow learner Bush is.
The planning for 9/11 went on while Clinton was busy commiting adultery.
…and whilst Bush was holidaying at the ranch.
At least Clinton was on the job, in both meanings of the word.
Didn't realize this was such a socialist forum. Should have know it was packed with geeks and wimps. I am gone now. You guys can cry in your pee pants.
I can't follow how the Republicans get to constantly claim superiority on this given they seem to be constantly found with their pants down whether it is in public toilets, foreign policy or economics.
Hit and run seems your best option when this is the level of your reasoning.
Switch "communist" for "socialist" and "terrorist" and you literally wouldn't be able to tell if if a given remark is from the Republican Party of the 50s or now.
There have been two international terrorist attacks on the United States in its history.
I imagine you refer the first WTC attack (2/26/93) as the first and 9/11 as the 2nd.
Re. the first WTC attack, try entering the name Emad Salem into a search engine. Most especially, read Ralph Blumenthal's New York Times article from October 1993, and FBI taped transcripts of interviews with Mr.Salem, which clearly point to the 2/26 WTC operation being not simply an attack by "foreign terrorists", as portrayed in the media, but an attack in which one or more foreigners (middle easterners) were used as patsies by parties unknown who forced the issue with the FBI.
These two attacks were separated by eight years (1993 and 2001). What makes you think we aren't going to be attacked again if it took al qaeda eight years to try again?
The WTC attacks of 9/11 were way more sophisticated, and completely out of pattern for anything that "al qaeda" has done, or attempted to do, before or since. Their M.O. has always been simple: to plant bombs on (usually) soft targets and then set them off. Successfully boarding and then hijacking 4 commercial jets, then flying them around for up to an hour and a half in the world's most scrutinized and policed airspace, with impunity, is not the AQ methodology, and never has been.
The attackers successfully evaded the standard response from the US military that morning, indicating prior knowledge of privileged/classified information re. the air defenses' non-response, for at least a 90 minute period while the attacks were ongoing.... otherwise they would have taken their planes directly to their intended targets, rather than a lengthy jaunt all the way to Kentucky and Ohio (!!!!) before the return flights (in the case of AA77 and UA93 respectively).
Perhaps the attackers knew that the standard procedure (which had worked flawlessly for years prior) had been changed in June 2001, requiring personal authorization by the Secretary of Defense for interception and engagement of rogue airplanes. The old protocol was reinstated on September 12, 2001.
Al qaeda is in a stronger position now than they have been in the 2000s because of Bush's botched efforts in Afghanistan and the simple fact that the Iraqi battlefield has been an excellent training ground for new terrorists, which it never was when Saddam was in power.
That is, if "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is a real group. Any insurgent group has been caught up in the "al qaeda in Iraq" label: it's easy and it neatly pigeonholes the opposition for the nondiscerning reader/watcher/listener.
Yeah, we're taking the battle to them alright. Training them, and expecting them not to hit back. Who was it again that equipped the Mujahideen which produced both the Taliban and al qaeda? Oh right... the US. Who gave Saddam his weapons? Right the US. Seems to me that our foreign policy in all of this has been short sighted, and Bush's wars are no exception.
That should have been your first paragraph! The rest would then be redundant.
Who's done more damage and ruined more lives?
neocons, because alqaeda killed 3000 people but the neocons made sure they succeeded in destroying people's freedoms.
.....because alqaeda killed 3000 people
There has been no proof of such which would stand up in a real US court of law. Kangaroo courts, aka "military tribunals", perhaps, but that's the M.O. of uncivilized nations, and their verdicts should be taken with a very large portion of salt.
but the neocons made sure they succeeded in destroying people's freedoms.
Mission accomplished.
Saddam killed between 70 and 125 civilians each day:
http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_d...sein42503.html
We have only killed about 100K over 5 years, so it is quite a bit less than Saddam killed.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Congratulations, clueless. Saddam Hussein is not Al Quaeda, nor did he have any relationship with Al Quaeda.