Airline Workers Should Have Known About Threats

I can’t believe that any one with some common sense is buying the Dr. C. Rice’s argument that there was no direct threat. Do we need a direct invitation to a party to recognize that there is a party? At the end it does not matter what a hijacker does with the aircraft he takes control off. If he uses it to blackmail or uses it as a missile or bomb. Just the plain fact that an aircraft could be hijacked is reason enough to act and to try to prevent. Therefore it was this administrations responsibility to inform and protect and not the problem of any previous administrations. If Al Gore had been president and this would have happened it would have been his responsibility and problem.

Every one who worked for this administration and has the balls to contradict their version of everything is portrayed as a lair etc. How come this administration is full of absolutely perfect people who do absolutely perfect jobs? If they are so perfect, why are we in all the trouble we are in, have so many unemployed and gas prices are higher than ever. Looking at the oil prices of the past and the gas prices it looks like we are paying more for gas now than at other times with equal high oil prices. Who is making all the profits (the Oil companies that this administration is so involved with). This industry is suffering unnecessary because of this.
"Hi. My name is John F. Kerry (or JFK as I like to call myself) and I would like your vote this November as I
run for the office of President of theUnited States. Let me tell you a little about myself and why I should be your next president. I gained a vast amount of military experience when I served bravely in Vietnam. When I came home after my tour, I went to the White House, called my fellow troops baby killers, then threw the medals awarded to me over the White House fence and took pictures with Hanoi Jane.

While He did protest against war, He never took any pictures with "Hanoi Jane". He is pictured in the BACKGROUND of a picture of Jane (Since She hadnt gone to Hanoi yet, Ill just call her Jane here) at a peace rally they both happened to be attending.Your statment seems to imply that Kerry supports what Hanoi Jane did, which to my knowledge is FALSE.

Then I married Ms. Heinz and claimed her $500 million fortune as my own.

Who cares?

Then I got elected into the Senate with my good buddy Ted Kennedy and together we have the most liberal voting record in the Senate.

When did voteing liberal in the senate while representing a liberal state become a bad thing?

Not only will I slash the defense and CIA budget (which, I might add, I voted for many times),

You can get the facts on how false this statment is here :
Heres a few excerpts:

"It's true that Kerry's 1995 proposal called for cutting intelligence funding by $1.5 billion over five years. The actual amount of intelligence spending is classified, but according to the Boston Globe, the Washington Post and others, the US was spending roughly $27 billion on intelligence at the time. So the $300-million cut would have amounted to a little over 1 percent. Hardly a "gutting."

It's true Kerry's measure had no co-sponsors and died without a hearing. But that's hardly evidence it was "deeply irresponsible" as the President claimed. On the contrary, there was bipartisan support for cutting what was seen as wasteful spending of classified intelligence funds.

In fact, Kerry's proposal came five days after the Washington Post had reported that one intelligence agency, the super-secret National Reconnaissance Office, had quietly hoarded between $1 billion and $1.7 billion in unspent funds without informing the Central Intelligence Agency or the Pentagon. The CIA was in the midst of an inquiry into the NRO's funding because of complaints that the agency had spent $300 million on unspent funds from its classified budget to build a new headquarters building in Virginia a year earlier."
Also, the very same day Kerry proposed his $1.5 billion cut, the Senate passed by voice vote an amendment proposed by Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania to eliminate $1 billion in intelligence funds for fiscal year 1996. Specter made clear he was attempting to recoup $1 billion in unused intelligence funds from the NRO:

It has alleged that the NRO has accumulated more than $1 billion in unspent funds without informing the Pentagon, CIA, or Congress.

Kerry co-sponsored a companion measure to the Specter amendment, along with Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama. The cut eventually became law as part of a House-Senate package endorsed by the Republican leadership.

And in fact, the reports of an NRO slush fund turned out to be true. According to former CIA general counsel Jeffrey Smith, who led the investigation:

Our inquiry revealed that the NRO had for years accumulated very substantial amount as a 'rainy day fund.'...

You get the point. Just More BULL!@#$.

I will raise the taxes on gas (which I voted for a few years ago[to raise it $0.50 per gallon]),

Look here:

A few quotes:
"Kerry's support for a 50-cent-a-gallon increase in the gasoline tax happened a decade ago, back when regular was selling for a national average of $1.01 per gallon. Kerry's support was so fleeting that the only evidence of it to surface so far are two old newspaper clips in which Kerry complains that he deserved more credit as a deficit-cutter. He never voted for, or sponsored, legislation to impose such a tax, and he doesn't support one now, when the price is just under $1.76."

"But "wacky?" In fact, the idea of raising gasoline taxes was praised in 1999 by Harvard economist Gregory Mankiw, who is now the chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers."

Also, Heres Dick Cheney view:

New York Times:

April 6, 2004
Cheney Tax Plan From '86 Would Have Raised Gas Prices

ASHINGTON, April 5 — In October 1986, when Dick Cheney was the lone congressman from energy-rich Wyoming, he introduced legislation to create a new import tax that would have caused the price of oil, and ultimately the price of gasoline paid by drivers, to soar by billions of dollars per year.

"Let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States," Mr. Cheney, who is now vice president, said shortly after introducing the legislation.

Lets read that one again :
"Let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States," Mr. Cheney, who is now vice president, said shortly after introducing the legislation

raise income taxes for the "evil wealthy"
Good. I Also hear He Wants to raise income taxes on the "good wealthy", And yes, even the "nuetral wealthy".

try to set up a government run health care system (like the one in Canada, which works great),
Well I havent heard anything about this, Its a great idea! Care do give me your source?

and pander to the U.N.
Get over it. The old "permission from the UN" Bull. I dont care to debate the war in Iraq here ,other than to say its pretty obvious the issue is more complicated than "pandering to the U.N."

and, oh, did I mention, raise taxes.
Yea. You did. But only on people who make over 200K.I guess If you make over 200K, Kerry might not be your guy.But if you make less, you might just get a tax cut.

BTW, If you want to get the truth about Kerry's voting record regarding taxes, look here:

Here a few snippets:
"Bush released yet another attack on Kerry April 1, an ad appropriately named "troubling." The Bush ad recycles a couple of bogus claims we've de-bunked before -- a misleading claim that Kerry voted for "higher taxes" 350 times and a claim that "Kerry's plan will raise taxes by at least $900 billion." We pointed out previously that the 350-vote figure is so off base that it actually counts some Kerry votes for tax cuts as votes for "higher taxes." And as we said earlier , the only tax "plan" Kerry has proposed is to repeal Bush's tax cuts for those making $200,000 a year or more, while giving some additional tax breaks to those further down the income scale."

"The Bush lists of 379 votes is padded with scores of votes Kerry cast against tax decreases (which would leave taxes unchanged, not higher), votes to reduce the size of proposed tax cuts (which would leave taxes lower, though not as much lower as proposed), and “votes for watered-down, Democrat ‘tax cut’ substitutes†(which often proposed to distribute the benefits of tax cuts farther down the income scale than Republican proposals). Thus the Bush campaign counts some votes for tax cuts as votes for "higher taxes.""

You know, Kerry and the Dems arent perfect. Why dont you go do a little research and come back with something that cant be rebuked? You might be able to change my mind about bush....
Wait a minute..... I recall seeing binLaden on CNN a year before Bush was in office saying that his agenda was to kill Americans. I remember saying to my husband, "This crazy SOB is for real." What happened? Nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #19
It's nice to have a little more stimulating conversation about the gov. .
I like the dialog and especially the care and time sentrido has put into his post.

I am not crazy about either canidate, or either party, although I lean toward the Dems. because of a more liberal stance.

Rich Rep. seem not to want to pay their fair share, so they vote that way for what it will get them in tax cuts. They make the arguement of less gov. but I see that as being false.

Too bad these parties vote the party line instead of what is good for America. Many bills are turned down because it would make a party look good, instead of what would help the nation.

We might have the best system, but it is running at about 15% efficiency.
sigh! I hate politics.

I really would like to see someone discredit the resume I posted. I know it can't all be true, but doesn't it scare the heck out of you?
atabuy said:
I welcome any comments and corrections to the letter below. I hope there a many.
Comments on the Bush "resume"...

"I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a cheerleader."
-Obviously this stems in jealousy from someone who didn't have ivy growing on their college's buildings. So what if he was cheerleader?

"I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record."

-Irrelevant. Clinton was the first president in history to play sax on the Arsenio Hall Show. Reagan was the first president in history to act with a monkey. The only thing in common between these three is that they have nothing to do with his job as president.

"I invaded and occupied two countries..."

- It was OK when FDR and Truman did the same (Germany and Japan)?

"I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the US. Treasury"
-The Treasury is bankrupt?

"I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history."
-In real dollars, perhaps. In dollars adjusted for inflation, I'm sure, FDR did better (or worse).

"I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period. I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period. I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market."
-If the Supreme Court voted for Gore, he’d have this honor.

"My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. History, Enron."
-Enron was also the largest democratic contributor

"I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history."
-Adjusted for inflation, gas in March ‘81 was $2.99

"I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government."

-Wasn’t the Department of War/Defense created by George Washington

"I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history."
-Name one. And don't count treaties that the US has chosen not to participate in, but are still in force in other nations - because they weren't dissolved.

"I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission."
-Because other nations decided to retaliate politically against the US over issues such as Kyoto - it had nothing to do with human rights whatsoever. It is neglected to mention that the US was elected back onto this commission the following year.

"I set the record for fewest number of press conferences of any President since the advent of television"
-He also hasn't had to go on the air to say he didn't get blown by an intern, or that he wasn't a crook.

"I set the the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period."
-Of course, it must be acceptable to have a president (Clinton) and his family who spent more in his travel budget than every previous president combined. This also assumes that he didn't work during this time, which you cannot prove.

"After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in US history."
-And FDR wasn't on vacation the month before Pearl Harbor. There's no link between the two, unless you can prove that Bush did absolutely *nothing* except fish that entire month.

"I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest
me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind."

-All that proves is that at least fifteen million people around the world don't like Bush, and are organized enough to do it.

"I am the first President in US history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation."
-You might want to re-read your history books. Panama and Hawaii, among others, were sovereign at the time of their US invasions, too.

"I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice."-If 30 months is a failure, then you have a point
Chexfan says: "Enron was also the largest democratic contributor"

Incorrect. According to the Center for Public Integrity, a political watchdog group, the largest contributor to the Kerry campaign was the law firm of Mintz, Levin, CCohn, Ferris, Glovesky and Popeo. Reference

Also, Enroon has been surpassed, barely, by the credit card company MBNA as Bush's largest contributor. Reference

Also, more to the topic of this thread, I'd have to say that airline employees DID know that allowing knives and other edged weapons on our aircraft was a threat. However, weapons such as pen knives and box cutters were legal to carry aboard aircraft under the DOT procedures in effect on 9-11-2001. Unfortunately a failure of imagination knows no political boundaries.
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #22
I was talking with a friend last night about the redistribution of wealth and so I started to research it on the web.

I came accross an interesting article on labor unions under this search and thought some might like reading it.
I worked in a union for 32 years so I am not anti union. This is just food for thought.

The search page for all of them is here:

My friend gave me a few statistics about how the gov. has voted out many of the ways wealth was reditributed into our society, and why it is a nescessary for these changes to be re-incorporated back into law.

Something he said blew me away.
400 of the wealthiest in America have as much assets as the bottom 40% of the people in America..
That is 100,000,000 people.

The graduated income tax and inheiritance tax helped put money back in the economy.

Now it is helping the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

I don't need the rich mans money, so this isn't about envy.

I just wonder and worry where this is going to lead especially as we lose more jobs
to overseas, and our tax base keeps declining as our deficit and defense budget soars through the roof.

You know the counter in NY that use to show how much the deficit was declining.
It is being torn down with the building.
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #23
Here is a good article.

Redistribution, Inequality, and Happiness

"The more firmly 'poor people' believe in the chance of bettering their economic situation, the less likely their commitment to the notion of government intervention in wealth redistribution."

How concerned are citizens about inequality of income and how much do they support the government redistributing wealth as a means of reducing social inequality? There are significant differences between Europeans and Americans on these subjects, largely based on how the citizenry perceive social mobility and opportunity in their respective societies. At the same time, even within the United States, the nation perceived as offering the greatest social mobility, there are significant attitudinal differences.

In Inequality and Happiness: Are Europeans and Americans Different? (NBER Working Paper No. 8198), authors Alberto Alesina, Rafael Di Tella, and Robert MacCulloch find that "wealthy and right-wing Europeans" are not less happy because inequality exists, while "poor and left-wing Europeans" are unhappy about inequality. In the United States, in contrast, the poor may believe in "social mobility" (so that being poor now doesn't mean they will be poor in the future) and thus be less concerned than Europeans about inequality.

That the poor suffer from inequality and favor government intervention to level the playing field may be conventional wisdom, but evidently if a society perceives that today's poor may be tomorrow's rich, such sentiments will be modified considerably. This helps to explain why the popular demand for government to reduce inequality has been greater in Europe than in the United States for some time.

The authors take results from the United States General Social Survey (1972-94) and the Euro-Barometer Survey Series (1975-92) to determine the factors used by respondents to rate their level of personal happiness and sense of social and economic well-being. The researchers then correlate their findings with measured levels of inequality, a key factor in socio-economic "happiness."

In Preferences for Redistribution in the Land of Opportunities (NBER Working Paper No. 8267), Alesina and Eliana La Ferrara examine American attitudes towards redistribution of wealth, again using data gathered by the General Social Survey. This research is distinguished from previous inquiries, though, because it considers attitudes toward redistribution policies that arise from individual experience with social mobility as well as the role of general mobility in society. Moreover, Alesina and La Ferrara consider perceptions of equal opportunity as one factor in redistribution preferences.

Their results lead to some thought-provoking refinements to widely accepted generalizations about how rich and poor are likely to view redistribution of wealth via tax dollars. Alesina and La Ferrara find, for example, that endorsement of redistribution among persons below the mean or median income levels is inversely proportional to those persons' perceptions of opportunity for social mobility. In other words, the more firmly "poor people" believe in the chance of bettering their economic situation, the less likely their commitment to the notion of government intervention in wealth redistribution. Additionally, those who are closest to the median income level have the highest expectation of improved future income; hence their weaker attachment to distributive policies.

The researchers also examine the expected correlation between redistribution preference and risk aversion. An individual's personal history with social mobility (upward or downward) and actual experience of unemployment is likely to influence that person's attitude towards redistribution policies. By the same token, the self-employed are probably less risk-averse than wage-earners and accordingly are less supportive of wealth redistribution. The authors do note however that the self-employed are likewise less likely to be beneficiaries of such redistribution.

It is clear, the authors conclude, that favoring redistribution is positively correlated to belief in the possibility of social and economic betterment. But such attitudes exist only when individuals perceive "equality of opportunity" in pursuit of upward mobility. The people most opposed to government intervention in distributive matters, Alesina and LaFerrara find, are those who believe that everyone has the same opportunities to move up in life. Conversely, those who most firmly believe that discrimination interferes with equality of opportunity, including African-Americans and women, are the strongest proponents of redistribution of wealth.

-- Matt Nesvisky
home Publications | Programs | Data | About | People

Main Publications Page

New This Week
Working Papers
Books in Progress
Aging & Health Bulletin
2002 Japan Conference
Historical Bulletins
Free Subscriptions
Paid Subscriptions

Program descriptions and members

Working Group Descriptions and Papers

Selected Projects:
Conference on Research in Income and Wealth
Sloan Science and Engineering Workforce Project

Call for Papers

NBER Collection
Business Cycle Dates
Latest Business Cycle Memo
New Economic Releases
Selected Sources
Economic Organizations
US Government Agencies
Other Data Collections

Economic Report of the President
Economic Indicators
Congressional Budget Office

What we are
Contact us
Non-data Links
Site Map
Early History (.pdf)

Contact Us

Search via Google:

printit emailit
NWA/AMT said:
Chexfan says: "Enron was also the largest democratic contributor"

Incorrect. According to the Center for Public Integrity, a political watchdog group, the largest contributor to the Kerry campaign...
"was" is a past tense verb. I was referring to 2000.
chexfan said:
"was" is a past tense verb. I was referring to 2000.
Okey-Dokey, but you have to be careful or the Republicans will accuse you of living in the past or being obsessed with the 2000 election. It is interesting that Enron is STILL one of Bush's largest contributors; perhaps they appreciate a good value.

Chexfan says: "It was OK when FDR and Truman did the same (Germany and Japan)?"

Yes, it was.

I understand your intent but please keep in mind that Germany and Japan fielded armies measured in millions and were responsible for the deaths of over 60 Million people between 1933 and 1945.

While I submit that the invasion of Afghanistan was made necessary by the refusal of the Taliban to surrender the Al Qaeda terrorists in their country, you cannot seriously equate the Afghan and Iraqi actions with the invasion of Germany and Japan in World War II. Completely apart from the fact that in WWII there was a declaration of war by the US Congress as provided for by the Constitution, the fact is that the threat posed by Al Qaeda is by no means on the scale of that posed by the Axis powers in WWII. If anything our pretext for invading Iraq was not that different than that of Germany when justifying their invasion of Poland. When we apply the strategy of preemption we risk becoming like those we once opposed.
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #26
Thanks for the reply to the e-mail, but you did not disprove the article. You just said it was alright because someone else did the same thing.
This isn't about reps. or dems. as much as about the ability of Bush to run this country, and does he have any better morals than other presidents.

The story below was passsed over and I have some more info on it.

When Bush sold his stock he did not report it to the sec and said no one had ever told him he had to.
His company was purchased by another company, even though he had never hit a oilr and he was in charge of the new company which never hit a oil either.

When you read between the lines here, could these transactions have been a payoff from daddy's friends for services rendered while Sr. was in office?

(PAST WORK EXPERIENCE: I ran for US Congress and lost. began my career in
the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975. I bought an oil company,
but couldn't find any oil in Texas. The company went bankrupt shortly
after I sold all my stock. I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a
sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money. With the help of my
father and our right-wing friends in the oil industry (including Enron
CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of Texas.)
atabuy said:
Thanks for the reply to the e-mail, but you did not disprove the article. You just said it was alright because someone else did the same thing.
At no point was I really trying to disprove the entire resume. Very valid points were made, but others weren't so valid. People find it hard to believe, but I am not a GWB supporter. I merely added some comments to what was being posted so provide a more complete picture.

We can all admit that a liberal anti-Bush slant was put on the posting. What I cannot stand is some one not getting a fair shake. A number of the things that were claimed were done with a negative intention. Just as the original poster tried to enlighten everyone w/ facts about Bush, I did the same by attempting to prove clarity.

Without a doubt, eyebrows are raised and jaws are dropped when you hear monetary figures on the deficit and gas prices... That's the intent on the slant of the article. In real US dollars, I can't argue w/ that fact, but again, in an attempt to provide clarity I provided that in equivalent (inflation adjusted $$, or % of GNP/GDP) that it isn't the largest.

Some things are also not important on GWB's rez; having a criminal record, being a cheerleader, most vacation days. SO by comparing them to other presidents who were "better" tries to show the importance (or lack) of those points.

Just trying to compare apples to apples.

BUT, there are some inaccuracies.
* Is the Dept of Homeland Security truly "the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government"?
* What int'l treaties has GWB broken?
* GWB is not the the 1st to attack a sovereign nation

Other Points
* Lets remember that LIBYA (the pre-2004 Libya ;) ) was the Chair on the Human Rights Commission in 2002!
* What int'l treaties has GWB broken?

Heres one:

Did you even look?

* Is the Dept of Homeland Security truly "the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government"?

No, Its the second largest. the the Defense Department is bigger.

* GWB is not the the 1st to attack a sovereign nation
Actually the full statment was:
I am the first President in US history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation.
sentrido said:
Heres one:

No, Its the second largest. the the Defense Department is bigger.

Actually the full statment was:
I am the first President in US history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation.
Thanks sentrido for the correction.

Good point on the ABM Treaty. Although a true right-wing person would rant (and rationalize it) about the Cold War and our current threats, you are right that Bush unilaterally pulled out. (makes you wonder in the checks and balances of the gov't where Congress has to approve a treaty, yet the president can dissolve it)

I do wonder if you read my inital post. There, I clearly said that the Dept of War/Defense created by G Washington was a larger beuracracy, as well as pointed out that GWB was not the 1st US president to "order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation" citing examples. My previous post was a summation.
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #30
Thanks for the info and clarity.

This pesidency is like a rerun of an old movie about powerful people putting a yoyo into office so they could do what they wanted. Was it Mr. Smith goes to Washington?
Anyway, I just don't think he got there under any of his own merit.