Stewart Spends Last Show Of 2010 ENTIRELY On 9/11 First Responders Bill

Now that's pretty cool . . . it takes a comedian!

Thanks for the update twohawks!

And now the spam even includes a picture of a steaming pile of shit.

They have been doing that for a long time now!

no, silly troll, they aren't milking 9-11 because they are blasting those who refuse to sign a bill to aid first responders. You don't understand the concept of milking an idea, do you? You are basically just reversing an argument without understanding the original argument. You might as well have said "I know you are but what am I?" as that is basically the tactic you have used.

Republicans milked 9-11 in that they have used in continuously since that day to push forward numerous agendas from elections, re-elections, policies, criticism of political opponents, soapbox grandstanding, public appeal, etc... That IS milking something. You say the Democrats are milking 9-11 now because they are blackening the Republicans' eyes over one bill pertaining to 9-11 - that is NOT milking in anyway shape or form. Just because you fail to comprehend the term or are unwilling to does not make it so. Your ignorance does not make you right.

dude, seriously what in fucksake is your point in any of this? You are arguing for argument sakes and nothing else. You are just throwing out generic terms and turning everyone's arguments on themselves without actually making any real points. I believe you actually think you are clever in all this; like you just read "Arguments for Dummies" and couldn't wait to throw out all the tricks and tactics.

When I said the Reps have milked 9-11, I provided examples of how they have done so. You say the Dems are playing dirty but not exactly how. This bill is to help people which the Dems are trying to do and certain Rep senators refuse to do until they get a tax cut that they like. Considering that many of those who are against the bill or filibustering it have used 9-11 to garner support and appeal to the masses, this comes off as ACTUAL hypocrisy another term that you seem unable or unwilling to comprehend.

spam

Just another tool of the Bushies.

As usual, you comment without watching the video first.

Stewart pointed out how the Democrats are NOT using this for political posturing, when they have a prime opportunity to do so.

You have a habit of doing that- posting about topics you know nothing about.

He bull horned that one guy right in the ear then left him for def

Lol!

Watch the interviews with the first responders. A lot of people are getting dropped because their health issues are costing the departments they worked for too much money. That means they aren't covered by them, so what are they supposed to do?

so you just fail to believe that there were VOLUNTEERS that helped rescue people. those are called heroes and they do exist. go up to their face and tell them they don't deserve anything for the health issues brought upon by being exposed to asbestos and what not. these people are coughing blood, on 20,000 dollar machines, paying out the ass for a consequence they suffered in the act of heroism and a consequence they will suffer for the rest of their lives. you should go to hell.

shut the fuck up

well said.

Are you fucking retarded?

in case ya missed it, health care has kind of become a national issue.
just a lil.

Amen!

Stop being so contrary -- it may not legally be a federal issue, but morally, it is. The United States was attacked on 9/11, not just New York City and I'd hardly refer to 12 hours a day for a year, sifting through the WTC rubble as an "on the job" hazard.

This was a once in a lifetime event and you're talking about it like it's some pork barrel project. Get some perspective.

It is a Federal issue because those officers, fire and police, were responding to attack on the United States, not New York City. The attack was launched against the Nation, therefore it is a response to a National Defense issue. Are you saying that the attack on Pearl Harbor was a Hawaiian issue?

Second, there were volunteers from all over the nation that showed up to help in the aftermath of 9/11, again, making this a federal issue.

You sir, are nothing more than a Troll.

thank you sir. sometimes it takes more than one of us to speak our minds. thank you everyone for helping refute this assholes argument. it's funny how technical one will sound and force us to clarify our reasoning over an issue so dear. such an insight into some people's ethics, seriously, you cannot call yourself patriotic if you refuse to support a volunteer hero. and telling them they made a poor decision!!!! GO FUCK YOURSELF MYZ.

pathetic.

i dunno.why keep antagonizing people even when you know your just wrong.the world is a crazy place.nyc needs help with its dissproprtionate, unplanned for,unexpected massive health care costs, and you just need help.

1) Because the attack was an attack on the US on the whole (unless you forgot the Pentagon and flight 93 attacks too).
2) Because they are getting screwed by the insurance companies.
3) Because a good amount of the first responders were volunteers.
4) Because they were told that working there wouldn't be cause any severe health risks.
5) Because it brings back the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund.
6) Because it's being funded by closing a corporate loophole that allows them to not pay taxes.
7) Because it's the right thing to do.

I'm also just going to summarize what my message to you: You don't deserve life.

oooooo nice perspective, and entirely valid.kudos for you still using your deductive reasoning skills in the face of tripe.voted up

So your only problem with this is that the federal government is involved. I think the problem might actually be that the democrats are the ones doing this. Come to think of it, that explains everything.

You're against it purely because the democrats are for it.

I'd expect something as petty as this coming from you (well, pretty much anyone from the right).

Really? New York City, one of the greatest concentrations of wealth in the western world needs help dealing with it's piss poor planning for disasters?

as opposed to those other places wich are fully prepared to handle such an event like.............................................wanna blame louisianna for katrina as well?

They are the ones who profited from screwing with the middle east and now they dont want to pay the price

yup, just new york.not any of the other 49 states, just new york fucks with the middle east.is that with the new york army? or the new york diplomats?i also like how you in your statement make 9-11 the obvious reasonable result of our actions.nice terrorist apologist.i mean obviously the only choice they had was to fly planes into buildings, duh, it is standard protocal.

Both were attacks on the United States. Regardless of who did such a thing, it was an attack on the United States, not a municipality. This makes it a Federal Issue. End of story.

I would be with you on this. The government should seize the Insurance companies assets and distribute them to the insurees.

As a side note, because I DO support paying these First Responders....the 9/11 attacks were a direct result of American Foreign Policy.

No, I do not. Are you saying that because I endorse one action, I have to endorse them all? That it is All or Nothing?

What IS this "Bush Doctrine" you keep mentioning?

a direct result of policy could also be counter policy,quite lamentation,loud lamentation,passive activism,media exposure,governmental lobbying,and even prayer.flying planes into buildings isnt the norm ya sicko.if it were, its results would be prepared for.

nice try to obfuscate with homosexuality you attention craving freak

i respect your reasoning, and recognize the deductive logic behind that conclusion, but it isnt fact.it will never be a matter of fact why those guys did it.

it is just as reasonable a conclusion that they did it cuz of our foriegn policy, as much as it was an inside job by cheney's network.it is just as plausable that they really believed it was a religious obligation as much as it was an individual regional despot's (bin laden or whomever) personal political attack on us.

ya cant state definitively that it was a direct result of american foriegn policy, as terrorism has no one pathology other that instituting fear.the cause of that desire can be any number of things.

i do agree we are dicks though

The persons responsible committed the act and should be held liable. But let's not be lemmings and act like the rest of the world hates us "because of our freedoms." They hate us because our foreign policy is "What is ours is ours, and what is yours is ours." The United States' Foreign Policy has always been about fucking you over for your shit. If that is not the way you see it...then all I can say is you are a simpleton who refuses to deal with reality.

obvious troll is obvious but that obviousness aside 9-11 wasn't just a New York issue nor were all the people that worked at the site from NYC. In case it slipped your attention, but the attack on 9-11 wasn't against NYC but the whole of America hence the reason NY didn't go to war by itself any more than Hawaii did after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

In short, it is a national issue therefore federal.

i see that, and i also see a world rife with a history of far more oppressive empires who did far worse things to the worlds populations with less violent responses.

in not being a simpleton and just calling 9-11 a direct response to out global policies, i look for more reasonable nuanced links.

like bin-laden being a fundamentalist wahabist and is also ostracised by his family.his family whos power and ability to dissown him comes from our financing of them.with islam frowning upon the killing of muslims,but has a loop hole for killing non-muslims, 9-11 could simply be a hurt son attacking his family, through thier business dealings.cuz ya arent gunna get a lot of support from fellow muslims to kill the care takers of mecca, but it is easy to sell killing the kingdoms financial supporters.

foriegn policy related, but really a personal vendetta in nature.just one of a zillion rationals for an irrational event.

So far more oppressive empires who did far worse things with less violent responses? Did you know that since 1776 the United States has been personally involved in a military conflict every single year? I am not saying I know what was going on in Bin Laden's head. I do know that the easiest way to reduce the number of recruits he is capable of appealing to is to end our selfish and destructive foreign policy.

You are right to suggest that there could be any number of crazed reasons in Bin Laden's head. My point is more to the fact that US Foreign Policy creates strong and oftentimes violent opposition. Even when the United States has no direct military involvement our Foreign Policy as well as our consumer policy wreaks havoc all over the world. I am just trying to point out that we don't get to stuff our hand inside a hornets nest and then complain when we are stung. We also do not get to arm a person, then pretend that we have no blame when that person uses that weapon to murder and torture people.

like i said, i know we are dicks.it doesnt take a genius to notice when your country is always in a fight with some one, that we are the common thread in conflict.(amazing how after we left nam, they didnt do shit huh) but it is far to simple to state things like 9-11 are the response to it.i mean we have had these expansionist,third riech,colonial ambitions since 1776 like you said.but we havent had 9-11 events as a result of them either have we.the mexicans didnt kill themselves just to take a few of our civilians out despite us taking a shit load of land from them.the native americans only became savage as a response to our savagery, not out policies.this is something else entirely.i mean we rape africa just as bad if not worse than we do the middle east, yet no kenyan martyrs (radical islam is changing that but still).if it were a result wouldnt the somali pirates be at our back door?wouldnt blood diamond victim be doing the same shit?wouldnt africa actualy be fucking china up, as they are even worse than we are?its just not a congruent theory that policy=terrorism.

i think you are mixing pre9-11 with post 9-11.notice terrorism was a very very infrequent event domesticaly.then 9-11 happened, and we took the bait, wich is what the terrorism is.ya cant preach jihad based on the crusaders coming to kill you, when the crusaders are staying home eating chips watching porn.by us talking the bait and sending troops into the middle east, bush played right into the jihadist playbook, thus validating thier rhetoric to the locals and creating more terrorists.

but if it is our policy in general that cause terrorism, not just these wars, then they wouldnt need these wars to build up thier numbers of jihadis.yet they do.our policies alone can be used to inspire radicals, but alone arent enough.

i mean many many other countries (to this day) have colder policies to these same people, yet arent subject to what we are.it cant just be policy.not to mention they arent exactly attacking government policy related structures.they did when bombing our embassies in africa, but blowing up planes via shoes or underwear isnt reacting to policy, just personaly attacking us.

+ for you, because that is exactly the excuse that the Bush administration used to circumvent our Constitution and laws.

so now you have come full circle into destroying your own argument, and i didnt even lead you this way.i actualy stopped caring, but you just punked yourself.

your position is that it is new yorks problem, not the federal governments.yet now you are claiming that the federal government FAILED (not ny) in its RESPONSABILITY (not ny's) to adhere to the warning.this wasnt a new york local government warning was it.not intel gathered by new yorks intelligence networks.it was a federal government warning, making ignoring it and its results, the responsability of the government, not new york.

I am not sure a Bill that wishes to insure the health of the first responders hardly qualifies under this criteria. Are you saying it would be unconstitutional, not following due process, a revocation of civil rights? Are you creating an equivelance between this bill and Warrantless wiretaps? If so, how are they the same thing?

in now way did you even come close to addressing my point but that is hardly surprising. Having a field day of trolling are we? Al Queda didn't attack just NY anymore than Japan only attacked Hawaii but far be it for logic to stand in the face of the overwhelming stupidity you have been spewing here

So by your twisted logic since the Federal Govt should have worked harder to make sure that the New York City government was prepared for a plane crashing into one or more of their buildings it's the feds fault that they were unprepared

being as it is the federal government that has the security apperatus in place to handle such eventualities, and it is not a state issue, um yeah.shit, bush could have had his secratary cc it to guliani or pataki and it would have alleviated the burden of knowledge and there fore responsability.but literal ignorance is what happened.

and remember when talkin out of ones ass, when proven retarded,dismiss that proof by delegitimizing it.excellent point.clearly all the other stuff i posted was valid despite being a stoner, as you validated it with responses.but when exposed, that is when marijuana makes it all invalid.good show.im done with you btw

Terrorist attacks have been used on numerous occasions domestically, just not in the United States. These tactics gained traction and people saw how effective they can be in fighting a nation you have no hope against in a conventional war. We actually trained Bin Laden to fight against Soviet aggression in Afghanistan. We actually aided in making these tactics far more effective and efficient. Some we learned from our interactions in the Vietnam War. The NVC fought conventionally, but the most devestating opponent in the Vietnam War were the VC who used terrorist methods and guerilla tactics.

I am sure you COULD be correct, but Occam's Razor says that ALL those people who were involved in the 9/11 attacks (and I use the plural for Mxyl so that he remembers that it was not just NYC that was attacked..;)...) were not recruited because of personal reasons. But that instead they were enlisted using examples of American aggression and attempts at global Hegemony. And these examples are readily evident throughout the globe, and throughout all of American history.

Perhaps I overstepped when I said that the attacks were a DIRECT result of American foreign policy. Maybe it would have been more accurate to say that American Foreign Policy makes it easy to justify, and recruit numerous people to the cause of Anti-Americanism.

The Pentagon was attacked, and an attempt made on the White House. This makes the issue Federal. The Attack was not singular to New York.

"Maybe it would have been more accurate to say that American Foreign Policy makes it easy to justify, and recruit numerous people to the cause of Anti-Americanism."

now that i can whole heartedly agree with.prpaganda just needs a nugget of truth to radicalize a people.

The intelligence report showed that there was a possibility of a terrorist attack using planes. Not that New York alone would be attacked by Planes. Also, it is not New York's responsibility to protect the Nation's Sovereign Airspace, it is the Federal Government's responsibility.

Also, as has been noted on numerous occasions, it was not JUST New York that was hit, but the Pentagon, and an attempt on the White House. Are you saying that when someone attacks the United States, it is up to each individual state to defend themselves, and that it is their sole responsibility for the clean up? Or that in THIS case it is the Federal Government's responsibility as spelled out in the Constitution "To provide for the common defense."

im sure the right thing to do would be to keep appeasing you, as you are obviously desperate for attention and communication, but im just not that good a person.ive done my part, and like i said im done.

This is not a State issue. Those people who responded were not responding to a State catastrophe, but a National one. Thus it is also a Federal issue. I will grant you that the way to accomplish this MAY be in part to simply seize the assets of said Insurance agencies and distribute them to the responders. But I can not see how you can logically conclude that the 9/11 attacks were a State issue. Could you expand on the reasoning for that?

and your using logic to absolutely pay no attention to anyone's view except your own. so i dont think you'll get very far like that but what do you care you know everything right?

so its wrong to help someone, even after they help you? because life is brutal and fuck everyone who isnt me.

Just like after Katrina when Insurance companies were let off the hook because to pay out all the claims would have cost them too much money. The Federal courts ruled in favor of this, and nothing was done to remedy it by the Federal government, even though the Levies were built by a Federal agency.

I will say this however, those responders were not responding to a STATE catastrophe, they were responding to a Federal one. Would the civillian firefighters and medical responders that showed up to aid in the rescue efforts after the Pearl Harbor bombing the sole responsibility of Hawaii?

It IS the job of the Federal Government as this was not a normal situation which you cannot or are unwilling to acknowledge. Your argument is entirely superfluous

Do not forget Lawyer Scoggins, Trent Lotts, brother in law that was recently convicted of bribing a judge in one of the katrina Insurance cases.

Riiiight... because getting affordable healthcare to 9/11 responders is equally evil as going to war in Iraq or passing the PATRIOT act.

You're just compelled to answer EVERYTHING, aren't you? I'm just going to click you a down vote on this comment and call it good enough. I'm sorry, but you're on the wrong side of this issue.

It is clear to me that the Unions that provide the health insurance are putting pressure on the politicians to give them a bailout. Any fool can see this. The Unions have been collecting for providing health insurance, while pocketing the money and not reserving enough for contingencies like the 9/11 disaster. Guess who controls New York Unions?

Indeed.This IS a problem with insurance providers. If any of these people, for any reason, have to change providers they're screwed. They will end up paying exorbitant rates because they either have a preexisting condition, or may develop a condition that the insurance companies will call pre-existing BECAUSE they were 9/11 responders.

The bill is not superfluous. It will cover the above situation as well as long term medical costs that for profit medical providers will refuse to for fear of impacting investor payouts.