# Al Qaeda Coming to a school near you!



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

This should scare the heck out of us all!
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/ ... olchi.html


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I moved this because I think many will see it as political. I don't, I see it as modern realities, but I moved it to the political form to protect the tender souls who are frightened by such things. They should be, but they would rather die dreaming of a perfect world.
For the curious I did leave a shadow connection in the open form. I hope they follow that bread crumb here.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Awesome post!! that outta scare a few folks into voting Republican and completely take thier minds off of social and environmental issues again :eyeroll: . Is this indicative of the future campaign that will be run by the republicans, it wouldnt surprise me. I mean really what else do they have to run on? How about this " The terrorists are going to bomb your car if you demand some oversight and dont vote republican" that might work too!!! Maybe I should be a political strategist too, didnt take me very long to think that up.

edit: On a side note: I agree with you, they must be here, they certainly werent in Iraq


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Jpete

I have always said I would vote for either side that gets their poop together. The republicans could be more environmentally responsible, and the democrats could be a little more concerned about our enemies than my firearms. 
Anyone who thinks the republicans or the democrats are environmentally responsible isn't that smart. Even less smart are those who think the democrats will do as good a job as republicans defending this nation, and even worse are those who refuse to acknowledge that there are a large number of liberals that don't want you or I to have guns. This isn't a scare tactic, one needs only watch the news with an open mind.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Funny how that article only mentioned democrats whining about protecting *OUR* children with S-chip. As I recall it was pretty bi-partisan. Maybe the veto was to save some cash to give to his "base".



> This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores, Some people call you the elites; I call you my base


campaign speech circa 2000


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

jdpete75 said:


> Funny how that article only mentioned democrats whining about protecting *OUR* children with S-chip. As I recall it was pretty bi-partisan. Maybe the veto was to save some cash to give to his "base".


Thirty or so House Republicans out of 196 doesn't seem all that bi-partisan. Even in the Senate it was only a dozen or so Republicans that voted for the bill. Putting all that aside are any of you aware how they planed pay for this bill? How about a 160% hike in federal cigarette taxes. Never mind that smoking is not good for you as we all know but the majority of smokers are the very low income and poor this bill proposes to help. Kind of like taking money out of one side of their wallet to fill the other side. Even then there are not enough smokers in the US to pay for the bill as analyst predict that 22 million new smokers would be needed to pay in full. Only stands to reason that taxes would have to be raised somewhere else. Maybe gasoline, sporting goods, or fast foods. Who knows where the aim would be next. I wonder how many of the 12 million poor children this bill is suppose to help involves children of illegal aliens? The devil is certainly in the details. Just some thoughts.


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)




----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Cwoparson

Good points. As I understand it, the reason Bush vetoed the bill was because it provided health care to such high income families. I don't remember where the cutoff was, but I think it was well over $100,000 annually. Bush seen it not as helping the poor, but the stealth step in socialized medicine. The democrats thought that by providing healthcare to more people (higher income) that they would have more support. Offer free health care to a millionaire and they will take it just like the poor.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Unfortunately Bush was advised wrong. People making $80,000/yr don't need health insurance, but people making less than $30,000/yr do.

This bill wouldn't have given my wife and I health insurance even though we make less than $80,000/yr, but it would have given the family down the road in the trailer house health insurance.



> as we all know but the majority of smokers are the very low income and poor this bill proposes to help


Can you provide research that backs that statement up please. I have a hard time believing that. Maybe it is so, I guess don't know.

I wonder how much would have gone to illegal immigrants as well. That was a question that popped up in my mind. Obviously we have hashed over that issue a few times down here and I think everyone here agrees we need to cut off services to these people.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Live to hunt, why should anyone be "given" health insurance?

"Given" really means taken from someone else like you and your wife.

People make bad decisions throughout their lives not trying hard at school ect then when the consequences of those bad decisions come home to roost they look around and say I dont have what Live to hunt has thats unfair.

Then some politician is all too happy to seize some of Live to hunts property and give it to the person that made bad decisions in return for votes and personal power.

The whole controversy on this issue is that the Democrats want to socialize medicine, not because they want to help people, because they want to have more power. This was a back door attempt to socialize medicine.

Our system of health care may not be perfect but it is the best in the world and would be better if the govt got out of it totally.

You cannot find better access to better health care anywhere in the world, and federal law already requires that noone be turned away.

We have a health crisis not a health care crisis we are an obese population of smokers, drinkers and non exercisers and that contributes to almost all of the health costs in this nation.

Go to your local high school and watch all the lardass kids come out, when I was a kid there were only two fat kids in my high school, we had gym class everyday walked or rode bicycles to school and when we got home we played outside . Today they ride in cars to and from then sit in front of a computer or a tv.

I was a senior in high school before I ever drank a soft drink (purchased with my own hard earned money) my folks didnt have it in the house.

In my neighborhood all the kids but mine ride ATVs and they are all fat kids, mine ride pedal bikes or walk and they are lean.

I could go on but whats the point.


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

Way to HIJACK a Thread THANKS ALOT!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

jdpete75 said:


> Funny how that article only mentioned democrats whining about protecting *OUR* children with S-chip. As I recall it was pretty bi-partisan. Maybe the veto was to save some cash to give to his "base".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't notice, but this is where it got highjacked. I guess jdpete didn't want to talk about how panty waist the democrats are. Back to the original subject please.


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

:beer:


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

> While Democrats prepare witless campaign slogans blaming Republicans for millions of children not protected by health insurance


From the article that was presented. They opened the door with thier typical republican scare tactics and spin. Maybe you should have read it. As far as watching the news with an open mind, maybe you should practice what you preach.

(busy compiling list of pantywaste, big talk, small walk, republicans)

For BobM

http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Looks like my work was done for me. Its a partisan website, I know, but so are the ones you guys present as proof.

http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html

:computer:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

jdpete75 said:


> Looks like my work was done for me. Its a partisan website, I know, but so are the ones you guys present as proof.
> 
> http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html
> 
> :computer:


Ouch. Great post of that website JDPete.

Curious that I didn't see Hillary or Barack listed.....

Ryan


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

I dont think it is real current. They talked of Reagan in a current sense. I disagree with what they said of him and I disagree with many other derogatory snippets :down: directed at a few other respected leaders on the site (even though they are republican )

Also, just to be clear the military service of barack and hillary are did not serve and did not serve. Doesnt really matter to me since wont vote for them anyway


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

JD, a lot of good democrats did serve. I think the public was left with a bad taste in their mouth after John Kerry. Then there is Murtha which should is a disgrace to all Americans. The democrats of yesteryear are not the liberal democrats of today. 
There are good and bad on both sides, but those who don't think they liberals are after very strict gun control have their head buried in the sand. Also, after the poll that indicated 20% of democrats think the world would be better off if the United States looses the war in Iraq it is evident that many democrats do not support the war, or the troops.
I considered myself democrat for some time. The republicans didn't convince me to be more conservative, the democrats did. I did not leave their ideals behind, they have left theirs behind. They have moved away from the ideals of many Americans, but then the republicans are moving in the wrong direction also.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Plainsman, I agree completely, but you know me, I just couldnt let the pantywaste comment go unchallenged. I also cant let what I see as a blatant (and IMO badly done) attempt to shift the focus of the S-chip veto with scare tactics go without comment. If we are against welfare and a helping hand for the citizens, corporate welfare needs to end as well.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> I also cant let what I see as a blatant (and IMO badly done) attempt to shift the focus of the S-chip veto with scare tactics go without comment. If we are against welfare and a helping hand for the citizens, corporate welfare needs to end as well.


It never ceases to amaze me when people want to equivocate this stuff,

"so an so" (welfare) is wrong and so what I am doing which is also wrong (corporate welfare) should be allowed, drives me nuts and there is no point is discussing anything with anyone that sees the world like that. The downword spiral that way of thinking results in, is exactly why we are where we are.

But I agree with you end them both! I have commented about K street and the lobby power they wield and it goes in one ear and out the other on here, too complicated I guess. Most people in this country are so pitifully ignorant about the topic that we are all getting screwed as a result.

And jdpete,if you are insinuating I am a huge supporter of the Republicans in congress you cannot read, they are some of the most disingenous corrupt power hungry aholes in this country the problem is the current Deomcrats unbeliveably are even worse.

That article of yours on health care is meaningless as well if you want to know what health care sytem is best all you have to do is ask the one simple question. Where do people world wide( especially ones that live in socialized medicine countries) go for critical and prompt health care?

The answer undeniably is the US hands down.

The market always points to the place with the best bang for the buck and when you life is hanging in the balance the market will always point you to healthcare in America.

That will change for the middle class and the poor with socialized medicine, their medical care will delcine to the standards in Canada or Britian, the rich will always get the best no matter what.

That rich also includes our elite Congress, kind of like the "great" social security system they have of course opted out of, while they champion it for us


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Hey Bob,



> And jdpete,if you are insinuating I am a huge supporter of the Republicans in congress you cannot read, they are some of the most disingenous corrupt power hungry aholes in this country the problem is the current Deomcrats unbeliveably are even worse.


Didnt mean to sound that way and I agree

Getting ready to leave for the day, so I dont have much time, I would however like to start a new thread in the morning to civilly (sp?) discuss the healthcare issue we seem to be on. Dont like to use net at home since the dial-up is way to slow to do any meaningful research.

Whistler31: Sorry to have hijacked the thread  I did not expect the topic to turn like this over one comment. Will start a new thread.

Until morning have a good night. had a good time today


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

sounds good to me talk to you tomorrow, thanks :beer:


----------



## mhprecht (Oct 13, 2003)

Sounds like one teacher wants to be prepared.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071008/ap_ ... ng_teacher


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

Yeah OK, The point is that our children may be targets of mass murder and no one seems to give a rip.

http://www.schoolsecurity.org/finalbesl ... 100604.pdf

Don't think so?


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

From the document cited



> Q. Why is the Department of Education sending this information? Is there an imminent threat to America's schools?
> 
> A. The FBI and DHS are currently unaware of any specific, credible information indicating a terrorist threat to public or private schools, universities or colleges in the United States. The FBI and DHS have told us that there is no imminent threat to U.S. schools and that the group that conducted the operation in Russia has never attacked or threatened to attack U.S. interests. However, in an abundance of caution, the Department of Education and our federal law enforcement partners are providing state and local law enforcement officials and educators with an analysis of some of the important lessons learned about the recent incident in Beslan, Russia.





> Q. What should we tell parents and students?
> 
> A. We believe you need to be truthful and open. You need to tell students that there are no imminent threats to U.S. schools but that there is a continued need to be prepared to deal with a wide range of crises that can occur in schools and communities.


----------

