Media

Jon Stewart Tears Into GOP for 9/11 First Responders Bill: ‘Lame as F@#K Congress’

On last night’s “Daily Show,” Jon Stewart tore into GOP senators for not taking up the 9/11 first responders bill, which would dole out $7.4 billion to a fund covering medical expenses for those who got sick while working at Ground Zero.

Some members oppose the legislation because of lack of fund oversight, while others are upset that the bill is paid for by taxing multinational companies. Senate Republicans have vowed not to take up any piece of legislation until a bill is passed regarding tax rates.

Stewart used his segment, titled “Lame-as-F@#K Congress,” to accuse the GOP of being hypocritical, saying that they use 9/11 for their own gain but are not willing to help 9/11 workers:

(H/T: Mediaite)

Comments (300)

1 2 3 ... 6
  • tjdavid21444
    Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:07am

    Stewart needs to direct his anger (justified as it is) at the correct target. Not the GOP, who support helping the first responders, but the LAME AS F$#@ Democrats who attached all kinds of pork-type b.s. to the bill because they figured it was a slam dunk.

    Report Post »  
  • RepubliCorp
    Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:06am

    They have Obamacare……. should cover it.

    Report Post » RepubliCorp  
    • Spawnomite
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:21am

      Johnny unfunny Stewart needs to realize that and be happy.

      Report Post »  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:05am

    “Lame-as-F@#K Comedy”

    Report Post » Gonzo  
    • Spawnomite
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:19am

      That really sums up Stewart’s career.

      Making money tearing other people down.

      @$$

      Report Post »  
    • tranquilrider
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 3:13pm

      Unlike Beck I guess?
      $150 per ticket to see him speak in Ohio. The city that has accepted millions in Government money. That is a fact!!!!! Beck lied to you people about Wilmongton. Let’s see if he comes clean.

      Report Post » tranquilrider  
    • Atheist
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 4:16pm

      Wow, Gonzo. That was awful. Lame-as-F@#K Congress is a play on the words “Lame Duck Congress.” But nice try.

      Report Post » Atheist  
    • jlcook
      Posted on December 15, 2010 at 11:41am

      Oh Tanquilride Please tell us all, what in the world could Glenn be lieing to all his fans about, I can’t Wait to hear this…

      Report Post » jlcook  
  • Conserving Ink
    Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:05am

    Is the F-Word the new word of choice for Progressives? What is with all the hardcore cursing by the Progressives lately? They really are losing it.
    _______________________________________________________________________
    http://conserving-ink.blogspot.com/2010/12/political-flocking.html

    Report Post » Conserving Ink  
    • Sinista Mace
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 11:30am

      If you pay very, very close attention, a lot of this entire problem is associated with sex.

      The demons who created these human/reptilian hybrids are offspring of Satan, who come from the area around the constellation Canis Major, particularly in the vicinity of the Seagull Nebula.

      They are the Sons of God who came unto the daughters of men, and defiled them.

      These offspring have their DNA, and one of their characteristics of their defilement and lifestyles are extreme sexual promiscuity and insatiable lust. They also have no qualms about morally depraved sexual acts such as raping children, beastiality, and incest.

      It is documented that these morally depraved sexual predators even throw orgies in the Department of Interior, and Bush and his Father, along with Nixon, Reagan, Henry Kissinger, and many others, have homosexual orgies at Bohemian Grove in California.

      I bet Barney “Big Sloppy Purple Dinosaur” Frank goes there too.

      V-MAN MACE  
    • highcarry
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 11:45am

      sinister knows about the sex thing. the way he talks about my parts is scary.

      Report Post » highcarry  
    • tower7femacamp
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 1:25pm

      SINSTA I don’t think the sheep are ready for the whole truth yet.
      http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/pedophiliasecret.html

      tower7femacamp  
  • suzy000
    Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:05am

    I have so many questions….I guess insurance carried by Americans in NY isn’t worth the paper it is printed on? I thought Unions gave NY workers excellent coverage….in fact, NY is going broke because it is so good. Also….if we can give 90 Billion Dollars from the Stimulus for “green jobs” which failed….how come Obama could not designate 7 Billion to go to these responders? He designated food stamps, increased public housing and medicaid. Last question…..now why is it always the GOP’s fault? Obama gives away the farm to illegal immigrants and indigents and he gets a free pass. Now that is lame!

    Report Post »  
  • dirtypolitics
    Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:04am

    Jon who?

    Report Post »  
  • Sgt.Crust
    Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:04am

    stewart is the lame one, our country marches toward fiscal insanity and all he can do is attack? while the 1st responders do deserve our help, we should find ways to reduce some spending to pay for this fund. not just pile on more debt…usdebclock.org – we are screwed already! I have $54 Trillion reasons why…and progressives can eat my shorts!

    Report Post »  
    • dont ****** me bro
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:17am

      Crusty – ITS BEEN 9 YEARS!!!! My GOD isn’t 9 years enough time to do this in a fiscally sound decision? I worked for the leading NYC insurance company at the time, when W spoke and said “it was an act of war” that gave all the insurance companies an ‘out’. Acts of war are not covered in Life Insurance policies…my company, within HOURS of that knuckleheads comment, declared that it was not an act of war and would honor those policies.

      Report Post »  
  • barrycooper
    Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:02am

    It may well be the case that this legislation needs to be passed, but the simple reality is that Jon Stewart is neither a serious thinker, nor a genuine advocate for the poor and downtrodden of the world.

    All the firemen, all the policemen, and all the people who worked as a part of their job during that period were covered by very generous public sector health plans. Democrats like Stewart make sure of this.

    It would seem that this bill would in large measure designed to address shortcomings in that insurance, and in many cases likely to reimburse the health insurers themselves, which in many cases may well have been State and Municipal agencies.

    This becomes quite credible when one considers that roughly a third of the so-called “Stimulus” bill–some $230 billion–was earmarked to bail out bankrupt State Medicaid programs. That is likely the case here.

    9/11 happened 9 years ago. The cancers and other diseases directly related to it have probably by and large already been diagnosed and treated, and what remains is the cost.

    The more I think about it, the more likely it seems to me this is just about interagency fund transfer, and new forms of taxation sold using the technique of sentiment rather than reason.

    Jon, you are a smart guy. Why not start thinking in complete sentences? What’s that? You’ll lose your pot-addled, cognitively immature audience? Fine then: demogoguery it is.

    Report Post »  
    • dont ****** me bro
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:08am

      so in other words, FU&K tehe people that ran into the buildings….got it. Dirtbag

      Report Post »  
    • jlcook
      Posted on December 15, 2010 at 11:19am

      Nice mouth you have there TBAG can’t complete a sentence without cusing, huh?
      Here are some symbols for ya
      $,$$$,$$$,$$$,$$$. Hey I’ve got an idea, lets just pass every bill we can dream up put some pretty or dramatic titles on them, spend every dollar in the world then print 4 Trillion times that, then the entire world can be a 3rd or 4th world nation or world what ever, oh shoot if we did that you would’nt be able to write your cute bleeding heart blogs on how to save the world, (ironic ,huh) on your computer in your home. tell ya what I’m havin some money issues this year, my kids don’t get as nice of Christmas as they are used to, work is slow ya know, why dont you just go ahead and send me all the money you dont need and maybe a little you do need, just to be sure that I’m doin ok, that is since you think we all have the money to pass around.

      Report Post » jlcook  
  • Bigbird1960
    Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:00am

    Isn’t it the Democrats that keep attaching earmarks to this bill, so the GOP wont sign on? Reid is probably got an online gambling bill attached? They should all be ashamed of themselves and get this done.

    Report Post »  
    • RIK ROK
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 1:14pm

      nope it isn’t. you’re wrong. where are the “amendments” or pork?

      Report Post »  
    • jlcook
      Posted on December 15, 2010 at 10:56am

      Hey rikrok i have not read the bill, not debating that. I think the first responders and familys should get what their employers or unions said they would get the event of death or being incapacitated. Where in the world do you think we are going to come up with the money to pay for this, perhaps the trillion we are going to print with QE2, or maybe we can use some of this new omnibus trillion or better bill they are pushing, what about TARP did we use all that money, or maybe some of the last omnibus bill. When does it end! It has to stop this so out of hand I can’t stand it, if you can defend spending money on anything besides basic gvmt upkeep and military, you are insane. Perhaps we will all get it when the dollar is worth less than a Peso, Holy Crap Wake Up!

      Report Post » jlcook  
  • HippoNips
    Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:00am

    The 911 first responders were doing their job that day. . They were on the job, and the city and counties that employ them had insurance and other benefits for them. What happened to that ?

    Everyday emergency crews risk their lives , get hurt and even perish responsing to what the rest of us run away from. They city , country and state they work for should be taking care of them ALL , not the Federal government…..they have he miltary to take care off.

    Report Post »  
  • NickDeringer
    Posted on December 14, 2010 at 8:59am

    Stage one thinking: you must do it because I feel it’s the right thing to do. Pay for it? It ain’t my cash.

    Jon Stewart is a rebellious teenager preaching to an audience of rebellious teenagers.

    Report Post » NickDeringer  
  • Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
    Posted on December 14, 2010 at 8:59am

    READ THE BILL!!!! All of you. Just because it has a fancy name doesn‘t mean that’s what it is. Have we learned nothing? Food Safety Bill? Shoot, why not a World Peace Bill…who could be opposed to that. Until we can debate beyond bumber stickers we are doomed to the Daily Show dumbification process.

    Report Post » Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve  
    • ME
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:13am

      Best point so far on here
      7.4 billion is a lot more then some change in the pocket and medical bills paid for.
      would be nice if blaze could link to the bill if its even available or if we are able to read without a lawyer and two weeks of time:)

      Report Post » ME  
    • RIK ROK
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 12:09pm

      I read it. What’s in it that you are opposed to?

      Report Post »  
    • tranquilrider
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 3:18pm

      What‘s in the bill that you don’t agree with?

      Report Post » tranquilrider  
  • poverty.sucks
    Posted on December 14, 2010 at 8:59am

    What were those amendments again? How much Pork was there? How clean was that bill? Please remind me!

    Report Post » poverty.sucks  
  • Deutscher
    Posted on December 14, 2010 at 8:59am

    Agreed. This is something that should be done. I see no good reason why repubs should block this legislation.

    Report Post »  
    • winoceros
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 5:43pm

      Read the bill. It sets up Obamacare for first responders and survivors.

      It is not just paying doctor bills for these folks in their regular care of their choice of specialists.

      Report Post »  
  • grandma of 9
    Posted on December 14, 2010 at 8:57am

    don’t these people get workers comp? that should pay for their medical bills. just wondering what kind of system NY has.

    Report Post »  
  • Iowa_man
    Posted on December 14, 2010 at 8:57am

    Femacamp, I think your off your meds. The real point here is the DEMS are still the majority. If it was
    SOOOOO important, couldn’t they take it up? No, the Dems know they have to ram through the next stimulus under the disguise of extending bush tax cuts, unemployment benefits and a BILLION other goodies that they crammed in there.

    Report Post »  
    • dont ****** me bro
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:19am

      They didn’t have the required Super Majority (60 votes) so any and all legislation could be blocked by the Reps.

      Report Post »  
    • tower7femacamp
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:21am

      yes I am off all meds, but wasn’t 911 in 2001 ? 9 yrs and we are still
      not paying the victims of 911 ? I would support anything to help people
      who were injured that day and how many that live there will be
      getting cancer for the next 20 yrs. My problem was the Repubs
      seem to get tax cuts but can’t do anything else ?
      I hate the Dems but we are being ruled by one power
      and that power owns both parties.

      tower7femacamp  
  • bigtarmada
    Posted on December 14, 2010 at 8:56am

    Poor foolish Stewart..

    Report Post »  
    • abc
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 11:11am

      Jon Stewart makes $13M per year. He is also the most respected media critic in the US, which is why he can get every Presidential candidate on his show, including Romney, McCain and Huckabee, as well as Clinton, Obama, Kerry and Edwards. He is neither poor nor foolish. That you do not know this, however, might suggest otherwise about you.

      Report Post »  
    • Clive
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 11:28am

      bigtard, if he is a poor fool, he is laughing all the way to the bank.

      Report Post »  
  • tower7femacamp
    Posted on December 14, 2010 at 8:56am

    they did pass the food bill before the tax cut bill.

    tower7femacamp  
  • DonaldH
    Posted on December 14, 2010 at 8:56am

    Who is this Jon Stewart The Blaze always post??

    Report Post » DonaldH  
    • abc
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 11:08am

      The most important and carefully watched social and media critic in the US. His attack on the Republicans, which highlights extreme hypocrisy and opportunism, is spot on. How many times have we heard conservatives repeat Rahm Emmanuel’s claim that no crisis should go unexploited, but they ignore how the GOP has made political hay out of 9/11 for years? How long have they invoked the flag, soldiers and first responders when boosting patriotism meant more votes for them? But now that they have to give their taskmasters, the very wealthy, another $900B tax break, they want to quietly hide the fact that they cannot or do not want to pay for the health care of these first responders. And their arguments are silly and contradictory. They claim that there is waste in the system, although they do not claim such waste for military and war spending. Here is the reality: the GOP doesn’t care about anything but pleasing the rich that finance their campaigns. These rich are corporate executives that funnel money through Rove’s group or the Chamber anonymously. These rich do not want to pay any taxes at all and will continue to say that they are too high until they are at a zero rate. They have instructed GOP leaders to get taxes as low as politically possible, and they have told them that no other issue matters. So when the Republicans coopted the Tea Party Movement over the issue of deficit reduction, this was all for political show. If they were serious about deficits and debt, then they would be asking the rich to let taxes rise to a level that didn’t hamper growth in the 1990s on a group whose tax breaks are not stimulative anyway. They are not asking, so it is clear that they do not care about deficits. And we know that they do not care about first responders, since they are stiffing them out of a tiny amount of money compared to the lost tax revenue being demanded by the rich.

      Now, I am rich. I would be paying the higher rates. But I know that my economiic cohort has done well since Reagan, and it is time for those that are most able to pay to fix the country’s balance sheet. This cannot be a voluntary thing, but one done through tax policy. It is unjust for the country to be buying more than it can afford, and then ask those least able to pay to step up while the rich by second homes and ski in Aspen. We do not send elderly women to Iraq to fight. And we do not ask our poorest and least fortunate to cover the losses caused by mismanagement of our country’s balance sheet by the wealthiest of its citizens. The tax cuts under Bush are the main reason that we have a massive deficit. You cannot keep rates at such an unsustainable level. And you should not leave them there if you cannot find spending cuts to justify such a rate. Again, we are ordering $100 of food in a restaurant but only have $80 in our pocket and a credit card with our grandkids name on it. This is unjust. To say that the money is ours, and that we are entitled to $100 meals is ridiculous. You must pay the $100 or you are stiffing your grandkids and ruining the country.

      Report Post »  
    • OneRepublic4us
      Posted on December 15, 2010 at 9:32am

      @DonaldH
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 8:56am

      Who is this Jon Stewart The Blaze always post??

      He’s a comedian.

      Report Post » OneRepublic4us  
  • JCoolman
    Posted on December 14, 2010 at 8:54am

    As hard as this is for some people to swallow, let the American people take care of the 9/11 responders. Government (NY or DC) cant afford it. And it isn‘t the government’s place either. When you have faith in the good of people, miracles happen. And maybe the first responders will get something better than money.

    Report Post »  
    • KICKILLEGALSOUT
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:04am

      The Government can’t afford it because the Obama Administration and the Democrats are taking care of their first priorities and that is to make sure the Ground Zero Mosque gets taxpayer funding!

      Report Post » KICKILLEGALSOUT  
    • JCoolman
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:06am

      Congress is here to maintain the constitution. That’s it.

      Report Post »  
    • JCoolman
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:09am

      Among many other non-constitutional and non-American things.

      Report Post »  
    • dont ****** me bro
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:11am

      Kick – that may be the dumbest thing i have ever read on this board and THAT is really saying something…I wish I could send you a trophy or a gift or something

      Report Post »  
    • tower7femacamp
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 12:55pm

      would taking the money prevent any pending lawsuits that may
      come from the injured parties ?

      tower7femacamp  
  • 2dollarbill
    Posted on December 14, 2010 at 8:53am

    What else has been “tucked in” to the 9-11 Responders bill???

    Report Post »  
    • tower7femacamp
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 8:59am

      good point

      tower7femacamp  
    • better_red_than_dead
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:10am

      There isn’t anything else “tucked in.“ The Republicans merely continue to complain it ”costs too much.” ($7.4 billion, if you were wondering.)

      Report Post » better red than dead  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:17am

      better_red_than_dead you got it wrong, Better dead than red.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • better_red_than_dead
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 10:41am

      @Gonzo

      I respectfully disagree.

      Report Post » better red than dead  
    • RIK ROK
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 12:12pm

      ok then, if you all disagree. What’s in the bill hat you disagree with? I haven’t heard a single response to this question..Here’s the bill: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h847/text

      Report Post »  
    • tranquilrider
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 3:14pm

      Check your facts before responding. The GOP have no reason to stop this bill. Stewart is right!

      Report Post » tranquilrider  
    • Rowgue
      Posted on December 15, 2010 at 2:38pm

      There’s nothing wrong with the bill in theory. But these families have already all gotten huge governement checks. They have done two massive payouts already. And the second round was rife with fraud. Almost no legitimate recipients were making claims and most of the money went to cohorts of the people in charge of doling it out.

      This has just become another Pigford.

      Report Post »  
  • Rn mom
    Posted on December 14, 2010 at 8:51am

    As a NYer, I go with Jon on this one. The first responders to 9/11 deserve much better care then we are giving. The twin towers burned crazy (just an estimate)amounts of chemicals and Christie Todd Whitman, working on behalf of the EPA gave the clean up the go ahead- stating that the air was ok. Well, as usual, the government was wrong. I have friends who worked there, one friend was diagnosed with 9 different cancers in his body- no not 9 locations- 9 different types. The oncologists were amazed by the sheer number of types- he could only attribute such an anomaly to the clean up. If we don’t get serious about this bill and help our fellow citizens, the next time there is a terrorist attack- no one will show up to help. Do you want to see that happen?

    Report Post » RN MOM  
    • tower7femacamp
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 8:58am

      what has been done for these brave men and women in the last
      9 years ? I am afraid it may be too little too late,

      tower7femacamp  
    • mtnclimberjim
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:13am

      Ok folks let’s get this straight. Fire fighters, cops, EMT’s. All union. All have the Cadillac insurance plans, not to mention disability and workman’s comp they get. Lets get off the poor me crap. They took a inherent risk taking these jobs. Just like our troops jobs. They are dangerous professions and they are taken care of. This is just a case of the unions trying to suck the life blood out of society. I’m so pissed at the union lobbyists and those that support this kind of BS.

      Report Post » mtnclimberjim  
    • USAPLISKENXI
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:29am

      Look you are barking up the wrong tree NY city never gave them the right safety equipment
      to use. They got there asses sued off and lost in the millions so use this money as it was intended.

      Now im supposed to pay for there health care because NY OSHA didn’t do there job.
      I don’t think so

      Report Post » USAPLISKENXI  
    • mrsclark
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 10:22am

      Mntclimberjim – I don’t know about NY but I will tell you where you are wrong. All cops, fire, ems, etc across the country are NOT union. My husband is a deputy and they are not unionized. We have good insurance, and workman’s comp would pay for an injury or work related illness, but he couldn’t stay on that forever. They would retire him at about 66% of his income and if he were really ill, lost his job, insurance and couldn’t get another job, approx half his income sure as hell wouldn’t cut it.

      Sure they know they are taking dangerous jobs. But they in no way get compensated for it, that is for da***d sure.

      As a matter of fact, there is a bill in congress right now trying to force unionization of these guys in all states, which is a horrible, rotten idea!

      Report Post » mrsclark  
    • booger71
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 10:39am

      Just like any other worker covered under Worker’s comp, they are eligible for continuing health care for life along with 75% (tax free) of their salary for workers with dependents and 66% if they are single. Plus, if this was so important to the Dems, why was it not voted on in 2009 when it was introduced, and the Dems had a super majority in the Senate.?

      Report Post » booger71  
    • Rowgue
      Posted on December 15, 2010 at 2:26pm

      There is only one kind of cancer. They identify a cancer purely on the basis of where it originated in the body. Different “types” of cancer are more or less treatable because of their location and the ease with which that area can be isolated from the rest of the body and not allow the cancer to spread.

      Cancer is your own body producing mutated cells at an extremely accelerated rate. It’s not the resulting cells that are cancer, it’s the condition CAUSING the rapid mutated cell growth.

      Report Post »  
  • wildjoker5
    Posted on December 14, 2010 at 8:49am

    It was sad to see John so off on the facts last night. Usually he has his facts straight when making a “serious” monolog. Saying the tax cuts didn’t spur the economy the first time was just a shameful lie.

    Report Post »  
    • dont ****** me bro
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 8:54am

      What is your evidence that the tax cuts of 2000 drove the economy upward? I think its impossible to give the answer as the economy went in the tank…

       
    • DonaldH
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 8:59am

      @dontTbag; What proof do you have that taxing us out the ying-yang helps anyone and everyone?

      Report Post » DonaldH  
    • dont ****** me bro
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:05am

      @donnyboy – the democrat plan to retain the bush tax cuts on all but the top 2% was the most fiscally sound option. Overwhelming evidence shows that the top earners, when presented with 3% more in tax refund money would likely save it, not spend it, which doesn’t stimulate the economy. Its not enough to get money in the hands of consumers, you have to get money in the hands of consumers that will SPEND it.

      The blocking of the first responder bill is shameful.

      Report Post »  
    • better_red_than_dead
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:06am

      No. No, it’s not a lie.

      Bush’s tax cuts cost the government $2.75 trillion in expected revenue. Think about that for a moment – that’s nearly $3 trillion dollars we could have otherwise had to help with the deficit (actually would have erased it, but whatever.) It failed to spur investment and job creation – during the Bush years, job creation was 1/7 what it was under Clinton. Richard Nixon created more jobs. Gerald Ford created more jobs. Wages fell. Average incomes fell (and these were both BEFORE the so-called “Great Recession.”)

      Stop lying to yourselves that tax cuts somehow equal more jobs and a better economy. It’s only true up to a fairly limited point, anything beyond that is just handouts to the top 1% of this country.

      Report Post » better red than dead  
    • wildjoker5
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:30am

      Yes, “handouts” to the rich for their hard work that have enough money to spend on their small business compared to the handouts from the rich to the lazy unemployed that have sat without a job in 2 years is more fiscally sound. Sure vilify the people that are fiscally responsible and not wanting to blow their money like an NBA star.

      This talk about “we are in debt because we don’t tax the rich enough” is BS. Do you say you wouldn’t be in debt if your boss paid you more? No, you would still be in debt, you will still max your credit card and spend all of your paycheck if you were the government and be collecting more from the rich. The $3 trillion in revenue is an estimate of over 10 years, you think the government won’t spend that in the first year? They are already planning on spending over a trillion this year. We need to stop spending on crap that gets us no where, like welfare and unemployment. You should have been more responsible with your money, not spending everything you earned when you were working, and then using you credit cards. Shouldn’t have bought the biggest SUV you could find when gas was $1/gallon. You should have saved something of what you were getting paid so incase there was a time you got laid off, you could have survived on your savings till you could have found ANY job to supplament your savings. DON’T LIVE PAST YOUR MEANS. DON’T EVEN LIVE TO 80% OF YOUR MEANS.

      Report Post »  
    • mrsclark
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 10:10am

      Dont – I am by no means rich, unemployed at the moment, but I would rather let those top 2% keep their money, even if they are saving it, cause it is THEIR money, than have the government take it from them.

      The problem with constantly soaking the rich, who decides who is rich? The government? Some day, they are going to decide that You are the rich. Even the poor in this country are rich compared to the poor in other countries. Most of our poor, on food stamps and living in section 8 housing are still walking around with their nails done, hair done, cell phones, computers and internet.

      “Those that deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves” Abraham Lincoln , well, let me expand on that a little, those who want to take the deny people the income they or their families have earned, deserve not their own.

      Report Post » mrsclark  
    • abc
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 10:48am

      MrsClark, it is not their money if they are a citizen of a country that is spending that money. If you order a $20 steak at a restaurant, then $20 in your pocket is NO LONGER YOURS. We decide as a democracy who pays what rate, and we have agreed (most of us, anyway) that progressive tax rates are just. To demand that we raise rates on the risk by 4 percentage points (to a rate that did not hamper the growth under Clinton that was better than Reagan or Bush), and that the richest among us pay it because they are best able to pay it…this is not unjust. It is what we have done in our democracy for years. Our founding fathers understood that it is important to pay our bills, which is why they insisted on even paying the ones incurred before the USA was founded. However, today, we have wealthy individuals that seek to pay less than they spend and then brainwash poorer people that thsi is somehow a noble path to take. This is silly. The country is not paying its bills, so the money its citizens claim that they have a right to keep IS NOT THEIR MONEY.

      Report Post »  
    • abc
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 10:55am

      WildJoker is so funny. Your moniker is apt. You claim that Jon gets the facts wrong, but then you make completely false statements about the stimulative impact of tax cuts (or extension of tax cuts) to the poor versus the rich. Every econometric study undertaken clearly shows that tax cuts to the rich are not stimulative, while those to the middle and poorer classes are highly stimulative. Democrats in the Senate properly cited these studies, which show about $1.40 of output for $1.00 in cuts to the middle class, versus $0.32 of output for $1.00 in tax cuts to the rich. These studies come from the non-partisan CBO, NBER and work at the US Treasury (undertaken over the last decade). You do not say which facts Jon got wrong, but I assume you mean to dispute the stimulative impact of the Bush tax cuts; however, you are wrong on that. No study has shown that the Bush tax cuts were instrumental in job growth, and the job growth under Bush was anemic. Clinton, who raised rates, produced three times the jobs that Bush did. This all makes sense and fits together. The rich do not stimulate the economy because their needs are met and their growing 401K’s do not create many jobs at all (excluding the proliferation of very small hedge funds), while efforts to get the middle class to spend do move the economy by increasing consumption, increasing demand and driving employment growth. Interestingly, most great companies that employ many people are not started by rich people either, but by rather poor but visionary entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, you have been duped by the GOP that is really in the service of wealthy people intent on keeping their wealth for their enjoyment, not for the benefit of society. That is their right, of course. But it is not their right to force the rest of us to ignore econometric data or accept their lies that what is good for them is good for the economy as a whole or for the rest of us. That fiction has endured long enough.

      Report Post »  
    • better_red_than_dead
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 10:58am

      @Wildjoker5

      The current federal deficit (most recent estimations, anyway) place it at approximately $1.4 trillion. You’re right – they’re planning to spend over a trillion this coming year ($3.69 trillion, actually) but the point is most of that is already covered by existing revenue sources.

      We could debate forever about whether or not the deficit hole should have been filled through the original tax structure or through not spending on the two wars and TARP, but the fact of the matter is that had taxes been allowed to continue at the same rate, the current deficit would not exist. And since lowering the tax rate did nothing to help the economy, I don’t see why it was done.

      I reject the assumption that anyone who is unemployed or hurting right now is “lazy” or “[blew] their money like an NBA star.” The poster right after you admits she is unemployed, and I seriously doubt it‘s because she’s lazy. Many Americans are struggling right now – the unemployment rate didn‘t shoot up during the recession because of a sudden outbreak of ’laziness.’

      The fact of the matter is that assisting the average Americans and those who are struggling is a great way to get the economy back on its feet, because people are able to purchase goods and services, which fuels business growth, which fuels employment, etc. “Don’t live beyond your means” – I agree. But for millions of Americans, that‘s not why they’re hurting now, and regardless without any assistance we could be looking at this recession lasting many more years.

      @MrsClark

      I just wanted to comment really quickly on your analysis of taxes. Here’s what I think – we already admit that taxation, on some level, is required. Even the most stalwart of conservatives isn‘t saying let’s have zero taxes, because that’s silly. Taxes are what we pay in order to have a civil community. The “rich” pay for the laws and society that allowed them to achieve their economic status in the first place – obviously it would be hard to become a billionaire if the world looked like something from Road Warrior.

      So if we admit that taxes are necessary on some level, we can’t just use the argument “well it’s their money.” It is their money, and they still get to keep most of it, and even if the Bush tax cuts DID expire they’d get to keep most of it. The top tax rates are nothing compared to what they were in the 1950s (over 90%, as opposed to the 35-37% range that makes up the difference between having the Bush tax cuts and not having them.)

      I would argue that the extra 2% is hardly asking much of them, and yet could be used to do a lot to help all Americans, pay down the deficit and fuel the economy – after all, the rich benefit from a healthy economy just as much as anyone else. It‘s just as much in their interest to see America back on her feet as it is anyone else’s.

      Report Post » better red than dead  
    • wildjoker5
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 11:08am

      @ABC

      It is their money unless we live in a socialist/comunist society. What we earn is ours, not the governments’. And for sure not the governments‘ just because the government spends money on things they shouldn’t. The government is too big, the spending is too much, the “rich” don’t need to pay the bill. Using you restaraunt anology and the way things are going here, the “rich” guy buys the lobster and Steak, but the poor guy only has money for the hanburger. You want the rich guy to also pay for the poor guys steak and lobster because that would be “fair”. But it isn’t just for one poor guy, it is for his family and for about 100 more poor guys too just because you think the “rich” can afford it. And it isn’t just one time, it is everynight because the poor guy doesn’t save his money or even get a job to go to the restraunt one time a year, he wants to eat there everynight. But you want the rich guy to pay for that expense every night because you think it is “fair”.

      You have been brainwashed into thinking everyone deserves to eat the best choice foods becaue the ones that worked for their money can. You think everyone deserves a big screen TV, 2 SUVs, cable, internet, computers, and to own a 5 bedroom home for 3 people without the hard work put forth. Stop thinking that if you make $30k/year, you deserve to live like you make $100k/year. If you really want “fairness”, have everyone pay taxes instead of just people that make over $60k/year.

      Report Post »  
    • ChrisBalsz
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 11:13am

      @ABC More like you are ordering $20 steak and a $50 Bordeaux, and then sending the bill to another table. No, thief, our government is not empowered to confiscate private property without compensation in the name of “justice”.

      Report Post »  
    • wildjoker5
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 11:17am

      @ABC
      You are telling me that someone taking unemployment will go create a Job? With what money? Money from the rich? Money from the banks that loan it to someone that is looking to start a business? Banks aren’t just spontaneously creating cash out their arse, they borrow from the fed and from the wealthy that bank with them. Clinton’s “success” was Regeans foundation. Bush’s down fall was the attack. After the attack, the economy regained strength and was prospering. Bush failed to head off the gas inflation which lead to people making choices of defaulting on their homes, or paying for the gas to get them to work because it happened right after the major boom MEGA-SUVs. Since the gas inflation, everything has fallen down, but giving more money to the ones that are fiscally irresponsible to get the economy going again even though they refuse to get ANY job is idiotic.

      Report Post »  
    • abc
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 1:06pm

      Chris and Wild, the costs incurred by our government are not separable as you suggest. My boss has four houses, three of them are beachfront and worth at least $10M each, but he pays the same rate as I do although the military and police and fire are dedicating more resources to the protection of his houses than mine, both in number and value. Similarly, there are a lot of rich bankers on Wall Street that have enjoyed massive free money from the Fed that is orders of magnitude more value than what the average American struggling to put food on his table has taken from the government. For every analogy or example that you can produce, I can produce one on the other side. But here is the reality: we do not run our government on an a la carte basis. We collectively have ordered $100 of food with only $80 in our pocket, so now we have to pay. Half are not in a position to pay at all, while the top 2% are in a position to pay comfortably. They ought to be the first to step up, with the others accepting higher tax rates once the economy is on stronger footing. This is the pragmatic solution, and America–unlike Asia or Europe–has never been strongly ideologically driven, but always highly pragmatic. We ought to follow that philosophy again.

      This is not socialism, which calls for continually taking from the rich to give to the poor, thereby destroying their incentives to work. Here is the reality. Every major corporation in this country, from IBM and GM to Microsoft and Google, were founded with tax rates at Clinton levels or higher. These “job killing” “crushing” tax rates that the GOP complains about are neither, given that Clinton produced more jobs than all of the Republican Presidents since WWII combined. This is merely demanding that we go into the restaurant planning to order $100 in food with $100 in our pocket.

      Now, conservatives keep saying–as you guys do here–that we need to order less than $100 in food. Fine. Show where the cuts are and make them. You failed to do it under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II even when you had a compliant Congress, and many plans (e.g., wars, Medicare Part D, etc.) that call for more spending were authored and passed by Republicans, so yours is hardly the party of fiscal restraint. In light of this, it is pretty hard to insist that we keep going to the restaurant with $80 in our pocket if we do not want to order only $80 of food. Further, it is immoral to say that we’ll keep showing up with only $80 since that will force us to only buy $80 of food (the starve the beast strategy) when: 1) you have failed consistently to only order $80 of food; 2) you are paying the $20 difference with your grandkids’ credit card; 3) bringing the extra $20 is not that hard given the wealth and income position of the richest class; and 4) it wasn’t that long ago that we were bringing the extra $20 and it didn’t hurt the country or the economy one bit (just ask Clinton).

      Wild, I AM saying that giving the money to the jobless guy is the best way to stimulate new jobs. Most jobs are not created by an entrepreneur starting a new business-which, mythology of the right, most of you believe is the key creator of employment. And most of the entrepreneurs are not rich when they form those companies–to explode another cnoservative myth. Rather, it is caused when existing companies see enough consumer demand to add workers, build new capacity, etc. And so what the middle class does is most important in this regard, since their aggregate buying power dwarves by multiple orders of magnitude the consumption of the wealthy class. This is not marxist fiction. This is economic reality that can be seen by looking at break outs of aggregate data in our GDP figures or population and demographic data of our consumers. That you do not understand this means that you really do not understand how economic stimulus works. So you should not be offering opinions on things you do not understand. And you ought to learn about it before going to vote in two years. An ignorant vote is, at best, wasted and, at worst, misused.

      Report Post »  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on December 15, 2010 at 2:01am

      ABC is right and Wildjoker5 is wrong. Do the rich work 100 times as hard as we do? Are they 100 times as smart? Then they don’t earn 100 times as much money, If they get 100 tiems as much money they get most of it by preventing others from getting what they have earned. And the poor and middle class create more jobs because they have to spend their money creating the demand that drives business growth. Even the money that rich people do spend doesn’t create as many jobs. Does building a 10 million dollar house put as many people to work as building forty $250,000 houses? Does paying $200 for a meal put ten times as much in the pockets of farmers as paying $20?

      Report Post »  
  • tower7femacamp
    Posted on December 14, 2010 at 8:47am

    Why haven‘t these hero’s already been taken care of ?
    and how many have already died ?

    tower7femacamp  
    • Boss J
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 10:15am

      In response to your ignorant ravings about tower 7, it was hit by falling debris from the other towers. I know that fact isn‘t as crazy and conspiratorial as you would like but that’s what happened.

      Report Post » Boss J  
    • Sinista Mace
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 11:12am

      Lol , where is the video evidence or eyewitness accounts of a chunk of debris massive enough and flaming enough to knock down the Salomon Building?

      Oh yea..there is none…-

      There is however this video of the owner of the bulding admitting that he made the call to have the building demolished….

      I wonder, how did he have the building DEMOLISHED if there wasn’t any DEMOLITION CHARGES already IN THE BUILDING?

      Did they…blow it up some other way?

      Or did they like, do like a cartoon and “pull” the concrete from under the building like a rug…

      I mean, what the hell does it mean to “pull” a building?

      Intentionally demolish it?

      I think that’s what the owner meant, maybe I’m wrong…

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

      V-MAN MACE  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 12:18pm

      Stop making sense BossJ!

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • tower7femacamp
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 12:58pm

      BOSS did you really watch the video ?
      and do you really believe that debris story ?
      REALLY ?

      tower7femacamp  
    • Republic Under God
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 1:08pm

      Sorry, but I agree. the WTC and Building 7 collapsed like a controlled demo. Also, the WTC collapsed at the speed of gravity (all objects regardless of weight accelerate to the earth at the same speed) which is completely contrary to the pancake scenario where one floor fell onto another, onto another and so on. The time it would take between the impacts of each floor that would consequently buckle and continue the domino affect would have taken FAR LONGER than the time the towers took to fall. By the way in the History Channel debunking, this was mentioned but NEVER addressed. Flaming Debris randomly hitting a buidling does not make a building collapse like in a controlled demo.

      There are a lot of interesting facts/coincidences/data points surrounding this collapse that are completely contrary the the 9/11 Commission Report.

      And the video with Mr. Larry Silverstein saying “pull it” a known demo term was on a news broadcast.. Mind you Larry Silverstein would be very familiar with demo terminology being that he had bought and demo’d several buildings prior to 9/11.

      Republic Under God  
    • Lantern
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 1:13pm

      Didn’t they just reach a monetary settlement? I thought that settlement took care of the family(ies) who were affected by 9/11? At least those who accepted it.

      Report Post » Lantern  
    • Rowgue
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 1:16pm

      Wow you truly are f‘ing retarded aren’t you SINISTA?

      He “pulled” the rescue workers out of the building because it was too dangerous to keep them there given recent events. This is what morons like you and Femacamp boy do. You take a word, sieze on it, take it out of context, attribute some imaginary statement to it that was never made, and generate an entire conspiracy out of thin air.

      Keep posting though. Nobody does a better job of illustrating what morons you are than your own words.

      Report Post »  
    • Mangatang
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 5:35pm

      Ah, conspiracy theorists. You guys never cease to crack me up. Where do you get this kind of argument? Loose Change? I actually found a GREAT commentary on Loose Change that takes one of the most comprehensive looks into 9/11 that I’ve read yet.

      http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

      Just some food for thought.

      Report Post »  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:04pm

      Republic Under God – The WTC towers collapsed at near-freefall velocity because the part of the building above the damaged area was the size of an entire normal-sized building. Once that much mass starts to fall the beams of an individual floor are not going to slow it for even a measurable fraction of a second. All of this nonsense started because people were surprised that it looked like a controlled demolition. The surprise comes from the inability to grasp how big the buildings really are and the tendency to underestimate their size and mass when viewing them from a distance. It’s not really surprising when you consider that the way a controlled demolition actually works – the sudden collapse of one floor causes everything above it to full straight down because it weighs too much to do anything else – is much closer in terms of physics to what normal people think happened in the towers than it is to any of the unnecessary theories conspiracists have cooked up.

      Report Post »  
    • AzDebi
      Posted on December 15, 2010 at 1:22pm

      Sad, isn’t it? MANY have already died…and their suffering was horrific! Must be the same mindset that has allowed 9 years to pass without a completed memorial…it is shameful…I am ashamed each 9/11 anniversary when I see the victims’ families and friends still assembling down in that pit at the make-shift reflecting pool…but, then we could discuss the fact that more troops have lost their lives in the war on terror this year than all the previous years combined since 9/11…we don’t even see their names or pictures on the news…also shameful!

      Report Post » AzDebi  
    • Sinista Mace
      Posted on December 15, 2010 at 8:20pm

      Rowgue

      You’re full of it.

      That’s NOT what the OWNER of the building said.

      I watched the video, he said “THEY” MADE THE DECISION to have the building DEMOLISHED.

      But why would “THEY” call Larry Silverstein to ask him what they should do with their firefighters?

      Why would the FDNY call a property owner and ask him whether or not to pull his men from the building?

      Liar, liar, building was not on fire, the FDNY didn’t call you on the telephone wire.

      You and your corrupt cronies demolished that and the WTC buildings.

      Report Post » V-MAN MACE  
  • tower7femacamp
    Posted on December 14, 2010 at 8:46am

    breathing nano thermite causes cancer

    tower7femacamp  
    • @leftfighter
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 8:57am

      Really? First FEMA camps, now a truther?

      Getting awful hard to take you seriously.

      Report Post » @leftfighter  
    • dwh320
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 8:59am

      Jon why such selective outrage now. Your Progressive Democrats have know this was coming for YEARS and they did NOTHING. Where was your mouth then for all those years Jon? Why did you not beat your class warfare drums of hate then? Could it simply be you want EVERYONES to pay MORE TAXES?

      Report Post » dwh320  
    • KICKILLEGALSOUT
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:06am

      Blame the Muslims! They are the ones that caused this mess in the first place! Can’t we just put a tax on Muslims across the country and make them pay for this!

      KICKILLEGALSOUT  
    • tower7femacamp
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:12am

      LEFTFIGHTER, what is your explanation for the residual nanothermite ?
      and why do you think tower 7 fell ? I would really rather have
      somebody convince me with facts that I am wrong, but the
      official story is not logical and has many false statements.

      use reason and logic not media and feelings

      tower7femacamp  
    • GeauxAlready
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:18am

      It‘s Bush’s fault………..

      Report Post » SpankDaMonkey  
    • Sinista Mace
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:26am

      It‘s Bush’s fault, Bandar Bush’s fault, Bush‘s daddy’s fault, the attendants of Bohemian Grove’s fault, the Bilderbergs fault, the Trilateral commission’s fault, George Soros….

      But Bush really takes the blame for it mostly, he‘s the one who allowed it to happene and sat there reading a children’s book while it happened.

      Then him and his CIA daddy hurried and got Bin Laden’s family the hell out of here.

      My uncle works at Hopkins International Airport and he maintains the runways.

      He confirmed to me that the passengers of Flight 93 were escorted off the plane at Hopkins.

      V-MAN MACE  
    • Frostbyte
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:27am

      See what happens when we shut down the state mental hospitals.

      Report Post »  
    • RepubliCorp
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:29am

      SINISTA MACE
      They should need anything with Obamacare in place. Did the charlatan president lie?

      Report Post » RepubliCorp  
    • IntheKnowOG
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:31am

      tower7femacamp

      Sorry dude. Planes hit ‘em, they burned, weakened super structure, they fell. No nanothermite, no nanobots, no aliens, nada. I agree with your CFR connections, etc. You’re wrong on this one. Also, what else is attached to the first responders bill???? Anybody?

      IntheKnowOG  
    • Major Infidel
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:40am

      Taxpayers shouldn’t have to provide healthcare to anyone, not even the 911 volunteers. Sorry, but thats the way it is. The real question is, how can almost a decades worth of 911 charities and foundations, not have taken care of these people? Seriously, how many millions/billions have been privately pumped into anything 911 related. Yet, everyone is crying poor. Where has ALL that money gone to? I think thats the best place to start, please don’t instantly burden the tax payer. If they need money for healthcare, then let the general public know and ask for donations. It would probably bring more money than trying to demand it.

      Report Post » Major Infidel  
    • Sheepdog911
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:43am

      I feel for these people, but if ObamaCare is the be-all-end-all of our collective healthcare need … why in the world would they possibly need this Bill to guarantee they can receive the needed care? Maybe because ObamaCare isn’t about better access to healthcare? Why aren’t the police and firefighters unions picking up these costs? I seem to remember that we recently gave them all extra Billions of dollars. This is all Nuts! Aren’t these all on-the job injuries? Where is Worker Comp on this? This is all more proof that the government cannot and will not do better for you in the marketplace than you can do for yourself.

      Report Post » Sheepdog911  
    • Redd
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:45am

      breathing cigarette smoke causes cancer.

      Report Post »  
    • tower7femacamp
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:46am

      @IntheKnowOG, you are making my point you don’t even know there were 3 towers
      that fell that day. Do you feel dumb for not knowing that fact ?
      I would. 2 planes and 3 Towers, do you understand yet ?
      Please take the 4 minutes to educate yourself before others also think you are
      foolish.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw
      so if you can prove that a fire caused tower 7 to fall then we can debate.

      tower7femacamp  
    • TXPilot
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:47am

      Maybe a Muslim tax should be levied in this country, so all the supporters of the 9/11 terrorists can help pay for the mess they caused? Oh, Im sorry….I forgot to remember the PC dogma…..Muslims are nice, peace loving people, while us Christians are evil haters…….my bad.

      As far as Jon Stewart, he and his fans are just hopelessly ignorant mouth breathers, who don’t let a little thing like not knowing the facts, stop them from vomiting on us with their so called “enlightened opinions”. And, I find it ironic that if the traitors they support get their way and take our rights, freedoms and money from us, his kind will be the first ones to start waving signs and bleating protests.

      TXPilot  
    • Sinista Mace
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:55am

      Republicorp..the Manchurian Candidate Obama did indeed lie. He is a liar. His father is the father of Lies, Satan.

      Manchurian Candidate Bush is a liar too and him and his Saudi connections DID knock those buildings down.

      V-MAN MACE  
    • Republic Under God
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 12:23pm

      I used to listen to Alex Jones all the time. He has good points. I must say, he was the one who opened my eyes to the lies that were so prevelant in the MSM. My problem with him is that he had anti-Beck propoganda that was OBVIOUSLY doctored. Being that I followed Glenn Beck and Mr. Jones, I could easily identify the lies. Youtube Alex Jones Glenn Beck Global Warming… That’s a good one. Especially since he was insisting that Beck believed in Global Warming and anyone who knows Glenn Beck knows Glenn Beck thinks that the idea Global Warming absurd. I naturally always take what people tell me with a grain of salt. I question boldy. T’s why I can debunk Glenn Beck better than anyone who has come to me attacking him. I was very disappointed in Mr. Jones, to the point of near tears since he was a big hero for me for a long time.

      Report Post » Republic Under God  
    • The Libertarian Atheist
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 12:49pm

      And we are talking about this Radical Left Wing ****** because…. Why????

      The Atheist Libertarian  
    • independentvoteril
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 2:00pm

      You know I only seen Jon Steward once or twice in my life UNTIL I started reading the blaze NOW I see him at LEAST once a week

      Report Post » independentvoteril  
    • Blight14
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 6:11pm

      100% correct…..and yes, I’d really like an answer on Bldg 7………

      Report Post »  
    • IntheKnowOG
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 6:14pm

      @tower7femacamp

      I do know that. The following is a simplified mathematical evidence to rebuke your theory. You can see it anywhere. This is not the time or the place for this debate. You have some rational arguments regarding the CFR but drop off into the deep end with the “building 7 thermite” bunk. Please, let’s agree to disagree. I’ll give you a hint on the math: (M2)2 applied to the structural support of building 7 (adjusted for bedrock stability or, lack thereof because of the close proximity of sub basement construction ramapant on Manhattan). Compound that shock with weakened supports via basement level fires (typical of all earthquake damaged buildings). That will give you all the evidence needed to explain why #7 fell hours after 1 and 2 collapsed. Don’t beleive me? Ask any engineer with earthquake damage experience. And, before you pull the “explosions heard in #7″ card. See basement level fires? That’s what happens when gas lines are ruptured near damaged electrical wiring. I do agree with most of your stuff other than that.

      IntheKnowOG  
    • johnnyvaughn
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 6:23pm

      Hate to tell you this, but Thermite is made of aluminum (Airplane), rusty steel (Trade tower supports), and corrosive liquid (Oh, jet fuel).

      Report Post » johnnyvaughn  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:01pm

      tower7femacamp –Tower Seven collapsed because unlike the taller towers it was constructed so that the outer walls contained the primary load bearing elements, and one corner was completely smashed and burnt off. The illusion that there is a mystery to the collapse stems from the erroneous assumption that the main support was in the core of the building, and from the fact that most of the footage shot that day showed only the undamaged northern side of the building, only one daring ABC News helicopter captured images of the full extent of the damage to the southwest corner.

      As for any compounds found on the nano (that means molecular) level in WTC dust – you can probably find any compound known to man in some quantity. Hundreds of different compounds were subjected to enough heat and pressure to break their molecular bonds and allow them to recombine into thousands of other compunds

       
    • AzDebi
      Posted on December 15, 2010 at 1:11pm

      Hey FEMA…I’m not a Truther, however, I can’t believe that people who put down your reference to the nano thermite have even bothered to visit the site and certainly have not taken the time to listen to the evidence put forward by so many experts in the A&E field…there are WAY TOO many unanswered questions…we need a new “thorough” “independent” investigation!

      ONE UNANSWERED QUESTION is ONE TOO MANY…we owe it to those who perished!

      Report Post » AzDebi  
    • AnotherRightWingNutJob
      Posted on December 15, 2010 at 10:54pm

      @Tower7femacamp

      Did it ever occur to you that it is possible those buildings were brought down by us, on purpose, for a GOOD reason? I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the tallest skyscrapers in a large city were already partially rigged for a controlled demolition. In case of fire, natural disaster, a terrorist act or other catastrophic event. Does it really make sense to allow that type of building to come down sideways killing countless people and destroying so much more unnecessarily? NO! They get all or as many people out as possible and bring it down in a controlled manner in order to limit casualties and damage. However, you can’t tell people that because nobody would go to work in the morning, or at least, definitely not people like you. I think this was handled in the best way possible, Truthers are just very bored and want to make something out of nothing. Go take up knitting or something and leave the thinking to the thinkers…

      Report Post »  
    • dawgPound
      Posted on December 22, 2010 at 1:59am

      9/11 We will never forget.. We appreciate the heroes who risked life and limb to help on that terrible day……..But if you get sick or die go screw yourself.

      Stay classy Blazers

      Report Post » dawgPound  
1 2 3 ... 6

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love