Venezuela Restricts American Airlines flights to ccs

[Hopeful]

Of course you are a GOP cheerleader. Thats why when all else fails you go after the same meaningless points as every other GOP cheerleader-Ted Kennedy and Clintons sex life.

While I dont care for the Democrats as a whole they are, from a workers perspective generally less harmful than the GOP. There are exceptions, I'd choose a New York Republican like Peter King over most southern Democrats.

Working people need to reject both parties and form a true Labor Party.
Poster child for Liberalism? Really? Do you know what Liberalism is? If anything she is a moderate democrat, too far to the right and big busienees as far as I',m concerned. She does "just enough" for Labor to prevent being lableled a closet pro-abortion Republican.



....

[YAWN]

**Moderator Note: Please refrain from quoting a lengthy post. It just makes it easier for everyone to read follow-on posts. Thank you.**

 

[Hopeful]

Of course you are a GOP cheerleader. Thats why when all else fails you go after the same meaningless points as every other GOP cheerleader-Ted Kennedy and Clintons sex life.

While I dont care for the Democrats as a whole they are, from a workers perspective generally less harmful than the GOP. There are exceptions, I'd choose a New York Republican like Peter King over most southern Democrats.

Good local Irishman!

Working people need to reject both parties and form a true Labor Party
Poster child for Liberalism? Really? Do you know what Liberalism is? If anything she is a moderate democrat, too far to the right and big busienees as far as I',m concerned. She does "just enough" for Labor to prevent being lableled a closet pro-abortion Republican.

Can you give me some examples if Hillary Clintons "extreme left" positions?
Free pass? Are you saying that what a New York Senator says is not newsworthy?

It's in her past, but you prefer not live in the past
as you said of Ted Kennedy and Clinton.

Are you more secure? Why did you vote for him the first time?
Did not like Gore!
2nd time for security.

Oh really? Why not? People still pack onto A-300s dont they?
The price is right!


Yes, indeed it was. So that means it was Planned under George Bush the firsts watch.It happened within weeks of Clinton taking office and he was never given any warning.

Yes,it very well could of. If he did nothing, he is just as culpable as Clinton.

Now 9-11 happened nearly eight months after GW took office, the tickets the terrorists used were purchased while Bush was in office and the Bush administration had been warned of a planned attack. Yet they did nothing. Could it be that they had more to gain by allowing the attack to happen then had by preventing it? One thing for sure is that if anybody benifited fromn the attack it was the Bush administration wasnt it?

Who do you blame for Pearl Harbor?


Who says that? The plan may well have started in 1996, but perhaps that plan went into effect due to the fact that the airlines and the right successfully fought initiatives to increase airline security.
Like I said before, if he had the right would have impeached him for doing so.
Yes, I do.

No argument there. Profits before safety.



Yes I do. I remember that Carter introduced a plan to make the country "Energy independant by the year 2000". If we had done that then there would have been no Gulf War, no WTC attack and we would all be better off today.
The hostage crises was the result of our support for the Shah. The hostages were released though negotiatoions conducted under Carters watch.

Good point. Clinton/Gore had 8 years to enact
change.

The only thing that may have brought us to our knees is our dependance on foreign oil. And we are more dependant now than ever before, thanks to your right wing freinds that destroyed Carters energy inititives and anything that would lower oil industry profits.

Good point. Clinton/Gore had 8 years to enact change.



You mean that unlike Bush, Carter was a true Christian? That he believed in the 10 comandments and did his best to obey the laws that were put in place, unlike Bush.
Which would you choose, death or a 444 day incarceration? You forget that under Reagan American hostages were held for even longer periods, and were often executed. You leave out all the hostages that have been executed under Bush's watch. Well all things considered the Iran crises ended quite well.

YEA, THE NEW IRAN ARE A PLEASNT BUNCH.

How about this? If Carter really "punished" Iran for the hostage situation, and I mean really punish them, things might be different today.
And they really weren't hostages! There "guests." of the Iran government.

You are really quite good at blaming republicans for everthing that has gone bad in this nation since its inception. But you can't find fault with Carter's ineffectiveness and his negative impact on the years following his presidency.

Based on what? The economy? Working people had higher real incomes under Carter, both the deficit and debt were much much smaller, even in real terms. People were not getting cheated out of their pensions. They were getting raises, they were employed, what was worse under Carter than it is under Bush? Even real inflation was lower under Carter and we were not taking paycuts.
Oh yea, and you are not a GOP cheerleader.

Carter was more concerned with the CIA wiretapiing
mosques in this country and the rights of those
moslems inside. The 1993 WTC was planned inside
a New Jersey mosque headed by the blind Shiek in
the Santa Claus hat.
As for the hostage situation. Would you still feel
the same if the hostages were held for 4 years?
10 years?

Kennedy may well have helped deregulate the airlines, but he also said that he regretted it. No excuse, it should still be held against him.

I have never read where he regretted it.

The industry was deregulted in 1978, yet massive paycuts and union busting in the airlines did not take place until 1983, under Reagan.

I agree.


How many Republicans voted for Dereguluation? Isnt is true that the other sponsor for deregulation was a Republican and that the measure had near unanimous Republican support?

Don't know the answer. But it looked like they sided
with Ted Kennedy on that one.

Both Bush's have pushed to allow more outsourcing of maintenance and GW is pushing for more foreign ownership.

Yes, 8 years of Clinton could have toughened laws.


As far as the unfortunare "Mary Jo" she missed just as much as the poor unfortunate fella that Mrs Bush killed in the car wreck that she was involved in when she ran a stop sign.

Did Bush intentionally kill that guy? I am not
saying Ted Kenndy intenionally killed Mary Joe.
I believe he was drunk and took too long to make the
report.

one more thing. I am aware of the Bush family history and the wealth and "privilage" . But please don't discount the Kennedy dynasty's record starting with patriarch Joe. Other Kennedy clansman have also made the news in a not too flattering light.

 

[Bob Owens]

Peter King "Irish roots" are not the reason why I support him, but rather his moderate voting history and the fact that on occasion he has been willing to stand up to his own party.

It's in her past, but you prefer not live in the past
as you said of Ted Kennedy and Clinton.

Actually I've always been a student of history so I believe that the past is important.

Whats in her past? Where "in her past" is the "extreme liberalism" you speak of? Are you aware that if you go back far enough you will find that Hillory Clinton was a Republican who came from a Republican family? Quit believing all the unsubstantiated claims of right wing radio.

Who do you blame for Pearl Harbor?

The Japanese.

No argument there. Profits before safety.

And with Bush /Cheney in control its profits before the Bill of Rights also.

You are really quite good at blaming republicans for everthing that has gone bad in this nation since its inception.

It comes so easily, however you are wrong, Lincoln was a good Republican President, Teddy Roosevelt wasnt too bad either, nor Eisenhower. At one time the Republican party adopted a progressive stance towards human rights.

The fact is I dont just blame the Republicans but when Republican supporters blame the Democrats for things that the Republicans sponsored and pushed for years the hypocisy is overwhelming. Deregulation started under Nixon,but airline workers wages did not plummett until Reagan broke PATCO. Nafta had near unanimous support from the Republicans for years. The Republicans sponsored SR1327 and only shelved after the unions all caved in. Its stil there if they decide to act like unions again. They have resisted adopting ILO standards, and kept the USA in the company of rouge states as far as workers rights. As a worker you should be angry with the Democrats but to let that anger drive you into the arms of the Republicans is suicidal. Their agenda is clearly against working people.

Good point. Clinton/Gore had 8 years to enact change.

And they did, however everything they tried to do that would have benifited us was blocked by the REpublican dominated Congress and Senate. Dont you remember Gores attempt to increase Airport Secuity? Dont you remember Hillarys plan to fix the Health Care system?

As far as Oil, it was very cheap through the 90s. Thanks to the fact that Iraq was dumping more oil on to the market than they were supposed to. Any attempt by Clinton to develop alternate energy would have been labeled another "Pork barrel Tax and spend boondoggle" by the Republicans and promptly squashed by the house. Look, I think Clinton was a closet Republican. He did very little for the working man, however just enough not to be labeled a Republican.

Carter was more concerned with the CIA wiretapiing
mosques in this country and the rights of those
moslems inside.

Carter was out of office in 1980, the first attack on the WTC didnt happen until 1993. This is a typical example of the convuluted logic of the right. From 1980 to 1993 the Republicans were in control but somehow they try to spin it that Jimmy Carter is somhow responsible for an attack that happened thirteen years after he left office!!!

The 1993 WTC was planned inside
a New Jersey mosque headed by the blind Shiek in
the Santa Claus hat.

And we know that because Clinton prosecuted and punished those responsible, in the meantime Bush says that he is unconcerned about the wherabouts of Osama Bin Laden.
Where was the attack on the Murrow building planned? You forget that prior to 9-11 the most devastating terrorist attack in this country was carried out by right wing Chritian extremists. Maybe the government should have a microphone installed in every Christian church and working class home in the country? Is that what you want?

As for the hostage situation. Would you still feel
the same if the hostages were held for 4 years?
10 years?

Would I say that an outcome where they come out alive instead of decapitated on TV is more desirable? The answer is yes, coming out alive, even after 4 or 10 years is better than ending up dead.

Yes, 8 years of Clinton could have toughened laws.

Perhaps if he didnt have a Republican dominated House he would have. But, you have to admit all he would have accomplished is the undoing of damage that was done to us under the 12 years of Reagan/Bush.

Did Bush intentionally kill that guy?

My understaning is that she was extremely traumatized by the unfortnaute accident so I would say no. It was an accident. There but for the Grace of God.

I am not
saying Ted Kenndy intenionally killed Mary Joe.
I believe he was drunk and took too long to make the
report.

But we dont know that for sure, neither did the Police. Are you going to claim that you never, in your entire life got behind the wheel after imbibing? "There but for the Grace of God". I've heard mean spitited right wing rumors claiming that there was an affair between the two and it was intentional etc. If the family of "Mary Jo" found it in their hearts to forgive and move on who are you, or any one else who never even knew her to hold a grudge? Do right wing pundits have so little factual relevant fodder that they need to keep bringing this totally irrelevant tragedy up nearly 40 years later?

one more thing. I am aware of the Bush family history and the wealth and "privilage" . But please don't discount the Kennedy dynasty's record starting with patriarch Joe. Other Kennedy clansman have also made the news in a not too flattering light.

So the Kennedy Dynasty goes back to the turn of the 21st Century with a working class guy who with his witt and drive made it big. He was born poor. The Kennedys still give some support to those from which they came. Should we look at the Bush family tree?


Are you aware that people like Joe Kennedy got rich by making rich people like the Walkers and Bush's even richer? Are you aware that George Bush's grandfather was the head of the extremely anti-worker NAM?

George is the product of several generations of extreme wealth, and priviledge. Struggle is so far in their past that stories of it are not even known. When that guy talks about "hard work" it makes my stomach turn, what could he possibly know about hard work?

Note* I actually, inadvertantly, threw you a bone, but you missed it. Kebnnedys Deregulation bill was cosponsored by Howard Cannon, a Democrat from Nevada.Like I said, the Democrats are only slightly worse than the REpublicans.

For more on Deregulation read this; http://library.findlaw.com/1988/Sep/1/129304.html

 

[scot]

No longer having to do with the original topic.