Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Sen. Clinton seeks $1.9B for 9/11's sick

Senate Senator Clinton 2006 9/11 sick

  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#41 Captain Jack

Captain Jack

    Where's the rum?

  • Islander
  • 14,914 posts

Posted 14 September 2006 - 09:11 PM

View PostRhea, on Sep 14 2006, 07:07 PM, said:

I've already told you in THIS thread that the governor has already signed legislation into law that will extend workers comp for ground zero workers and make it so when they die they will consider to have been killed in the line of duty. The governor did his bit, and now Hilary's doing her bit. Where's the problem?

You don't read my posts, do you?

Quote

The issue isn't whether you hate Hilary Clinton or not (in spite of the fact that I'd bet 95% of the hate is due to her gender) - it's whether or not the workers at grround zero need to be treated decently by this country.

So, now you assume I have a problem with her gender?  Where the heck did you get that notion?  I don't care if she's a unich.  Gender has nothing to do with it.  I resent the acusation.
Posted Image
689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama in 2012:

https://www.national...at-barack-obama

#42 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 14 September 2006 - 09:43 PM

Quote

What makes those who were there on that day more deserving of the extra help than others for whom similar circumstances happened some other time and place? To give the extra help to some such people but not others is unfair preferential treatment

What makes them more deserving? For me it is the fact that they were lied to by the EPA (if I'm not mistaken on the orders of the Bush administration). They breathed in that toxic mess for days, weeks, months, believing the BS put out by our government that the air was safe. It wasn't safe, they were deliberately lied to and that lie took the choice of risking permanent health problems and possibly death out of those peoples hands. Had those people known the danger they were in, the possible longterm health risks they were incurring, how many of them would have continued to breath that mess in at close range?

Quote

It is easy to bash him. But again, she's a Senator, a Senator who has put nothing constructive on the table that I know of.

Ummm...isn't this bill productive and yet here you are complaining about it and her. She does something, you complain about it while also saying she's done nothing. You can't have it both ways. You've mentioned the 2nd amendment issue but unless I'm mistaken the very first gun control legislation was passed by the Republican President, Ronald Reagan. For some, even mentioning common sense measures regarding firearms will provoke hysterical rants about "They're gonna take our guns!"

I'll be honest with ya Spidey and I mean no disrespect but I really don't think you know what Clinton has or hasn't done regarding New Orleans, Gulf War Syndrome etc....I would also point out that I don't see you attacking any other senators on those issues, just her. Why?

Edited by Lin731, 14 September 2006 - 09:46 PM.

Posted Image
Posted Image

#43 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 14 September 2006 - 10:11 PM

View PostLin731, on Sep 14 2006, 10:43 PM, said:

Quote

What makes those who were there on that day more deserving of the extra help than others for whom similar circumstances happened some other time and place? To give the extra help to some such people but not others is unfair preferential treatment
What makes them more deserving? For me it is the fact that they were lied to by the EPA... that lie took the choice of risking permanent health problems and possibly death out of those peoples hands. Had those people known the danger they were in, the possible longterm health risks they were incurring, how many of them would have continued to breath that mess in at close range?
That still only makes their situation equivalent to that of anybody else who's worked and been injured or infected in a situation that they were told was safe (or weren't told was unsafe). And that still means that the real reason one set of people fitting that description is treated one way here and another is treated another way (with extra help for some proposed in the Senate and not for the others) is still just because of whether the hazard they faced was a big news event.

#44 Mark

Mark
  • Islander
  • 5,269 posts

Posted 14 September 2006 - 10:42 PM

View PostRhea, on Sep 14 2006, 03:52 PM, said:

View PostDelvo, on Sep 14 2006, 12:52 PM, said:

We must be talking about services/compensation above and beyond what their established contracts/policies with their employers, unions, and insurers already called for, because if it were already covered, then there'd be no issue here.

There are others who faced emergencies, and in some cases tried to help others in those emergencies, and were injured and could also use services/compensation that go above and beyond what their established contracts and policies already call for, too. But they're not being given it because whatever happened to them, whatever emergencies they faced, weren't big news events. What makes those who were there on that day more deserving of the extra help than others for whom similar circumstances happened some other time and place? To give the extra help to some such people but not others is unfair preferential treatment.


Other people were not asked to work at a site that they were assured by the EPA was "safe," only to find out later that it was toxic. They deserve every friggin' penny they get. It wasn't you or I out there for months digging up parts of people and debris while the government went on at great length about how safe it was.

And now they're dying of diseases like pulmonary fibrosis, and let me assure you, slow death by suffocation is not a nice way to die, and that's what a lot of them have, along with a host of other lung ailments.

Mark: Medically, is there anything that can be done (other than make the patient comfortable) to cure these people with pulmonary fibrosis?
We still have a whole city that needs rebuilding, and to have new barriers put in place to keep another hurricane from just doing the same things again. Can we cure New Orlean's troubles with money, too?

New Orleans As of July 2006, efforts continue to clean up debris and restore infrastructure. Although most of the city has reopened to residents, and areas that suffered moderate damage have substantially resumed functioning, the parts of the city most severely damaged still have irregular utilities and city services, and the most severely damaged section of the Lower Ninth Ward is still not officially open for residents to return to live. ...Wikipedia

Should we allow and condone (by Federal funding) people to rebuild their homes, and businesses in a city where 52% of the buildings, and homes are 3 to 10 feet below sea level? They say the older parts of New Orleans were built on higher ground, but since the early 1900's most of the development has been in lower elevations. New Orleans is the third lowest area in the U.S., with Death Valley, and Salton Sea being the two lowest points.
I'm NOT saying we shouldn't help anybody here, so please don't anyone misunderstand my playing the devil's advocate.
What can we actually do that is going to make a difference? I'm asking this question BEFORE the money is actually issued out...because if everyone will recall the millions, or billions that were given out to Katrina victims, only to find out later that some businesses and people profited from the aid that had NO RIGHT to it at all. Remember all that?
Mark
Discussion is an exchange of knowledge: argument is an exchange of ignorance.
Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with it.
APOGEE MESSAGE BOARD

#45 Captain Jack

Captain Jack

    Where's the rum?

  • Islander
  • 14,914 posts

Posted 14 September 2006 - 10:48 PM

View PostLin731, on Sep 14 2006, 07:43 PM, said:

Quote

What makes those who were there on that day more deserving of the extra help than others for whom similar circumstances happened some other time and place? To give the extra help to some such people but not others is unfair preferential treatment

What makes them more deserving? For me it is the fact that they were lied to by the EPA (if I'm not mistaken on the orders of the Bush administration). They breathed in that toxic mess for days, weeks, months, believing the BS put out by our government that the air was safe. It wasn't safe, they were deliberately lied to and that lie took the choice of risking permanent health problems and possibly death out of those peoples hands. Had those people known the danger they were in, the possible longterm health risks they were incurring, how many of them would have continued to breath that mess in at close range?

I don't think they realized what was floating around there until much later.  This was the first time such large structures had ever collapsed this way in the history of the United States.  Doesn't mean it's okay.  Things were pretty crazy then.  And it isn't just close range.  The entire island was blanketed with dust debri, so many thousands breathed the toxic mess to varying degrees.

Quote

Quote

It is easy to bash him. But again, she's a Senator, a Senator who has put nothing constructive on the table that I know of.

Ummm...isn't this bill productive and yet here you are complaining about it and her. She does something, you complain about it while also saying she's done nothing. You can't have it both ways. You've mentioned the 2nd amendment issue but unless I'm mistaken the very first gun control legislation was passed by the Republican President, Ronald Reagan. For some, even mentioning common sense measures regarding firearms will provoke hysterical rants about "They're gonna take our guns!"

It's protective, yes.  Not disputing that.  As Senator, she's done little, if anything at all when it comes to national issues.  As for the second amendment, Hilary wants to do a lot more than Ronald Reagan ever dreamed of.

Quote

I'll be honest with ya Spidey and I mean no disrespect but I really don't think you know what Clinton has or hasn't done regarding New Orleans, Gulf War Syndrome etc....I would also point out that I don't see you attacking any other senators on those issues, just her. Why?

Yes I done.  She's done nothing.  Why should I "attack" any senators other than Hillary?  She's the topic of this thread.  Why would I bring in Feinstein?  Or Kennedy?  And it's not an attack, it's truth.  Don't be painting a rosey picture of a person who is clearly a danger to the American public.

View PostDelvo, on Sep 14 2006, 08:11 PM, said:

View PostLin731, on Sep 14 2006, 10:43 PM, said:

Quote

What makes those who were there on that day more deserving of the extra help than others for whom similar circumstances happened some other time and place? To give the extra help to some such people but not others is unfair preferential treatment

What makes them more deserving? For me it is the fact that they were lied to by the EPA... that lie took the choice of risking permanent health problems and possibly death out of those peoples hands. Had those people known the danger they were in, the possible longterm health risks they were incurring, how many of them would have continued to breath that mess in at close range?

That still only makes their situation equivalent to that of anybody else who's worked and been injured or infected in a situation that they were told was safe (or weren't told was unsafe). And that still means that the real reason one set of people fitting that description is treated one way here and another is treated another way (with extra help for some proposed in the Senate and not for the others) is still just because of whether the hazard they faced was a big news event.

Hmmm...interesting point.
Posted Image
689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama in 2012:

https://www.national...at-barack-obama

#46 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 14 September 2006 - 11:11 PM

I guess America's hardest working, above and beyond the call of duty heroes are the new Welfare Queens.   :(  :(  :(   Bust your gut, ruin your health, earn the undying gratitude?  Not with neocons running the show.   :angry:  :angry:  :angry:
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#47 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 15 September 2006 - 08:30 AM

View PostNonny, on Sep 14 2006, 09:11 PM, said:

I guess America's hardest working, above and beyond the call of duty heroes are the new Welfare Queens.   :(  :(  :(   Bust your gut, ruin your health, earn the undying gratitude?  Not with neocons running the show.   :angry:  :angry:  :angry:

Not only that, it's the same half-assed argument people made when Viet Nam veterams started showing up with massive adverse affects from Agent Orange. It's the same argument that some people have made for ignoring Gulf War Syndrome.

If a civilization is truly measured by how it takes care of its children, its elderly and its disabled, there are some people in this country (and in this forum) coming up way short.

I certainly hope to God that there's never some terrible crisis wherever each of you live, because the rest of us will sit here and go "neener, neener, neener, screw you" if it does. "Shouldn't have lived where there are tornadoes (or earthquakes or flash floods or terrorist attacks").

The scary thing is that maybe one day emergency workers will look at how we treat the ground zero workers and make a decision about whether or not to save you.

There used to be a time when America was about helping other folks, particularly in time of crisis. Since when did this country become all about "everything for me and f*ck the rest of you?"  It makes me even more embarassed to be an American than I already am thanks to the Shrub and the grabby neocons.

Edited by Rhea, 15 September 2006 - 08:34 AM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#48 Gabrielles Army

Gabrielles Army
  • Islander
  • 116 posts

Posted 15 September 2006 - 01:02 PM

View PostSpidey, on Sep 14 2006, 05:58 PM, said:

Fair enough.  :cool:  For one thing, Hillary wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment.  I have a real problem with that.

You disagree with her stand on gun control. Okay now we`re getting somewhere.

Quote

# Keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them. (Sep 2000)
# Limit access to weapons; look for early warning signs. (Sep 2000)
# License and register all handgun sales. (Jun 2000)
# Tough gun control keeps guns out of wrong hands. (Jul 1999)
# Gun control protects our children. (Jul 1999)
# Don’t water down sensible gun control legislation. (Jul 1999)
# Lock up guns; store ammo separately. (Jun 1999)
# Ban kids’ unsupervised access to guns. (Jun 1999)
# Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
# Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)

Quote

Keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them

We need to stand firm on behalf of sensible gun control legislation. We have to enact laws that will keep guns out of the hand of children and criminals and mentally unbalanced persons. Congress should have acted before our children started going back to school. I realize the NRA is a formidable political group; but I believe the American people are ready to come together as a nation and do whatever it takes to keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them.
Source: www.hillary2000.org, “Gun Safety” Sep 9, 2000

Limit access to weapons; look for early warning signs

We have to make sure that our schools are safe. Our schools need more help from parents and from communities, and we also need more social workers and counselors who are trained to see the early warning signs. No school security system or metal detector can keep out the culture of violence that dominates the lives of so many of our children. We have to address issues of culture, and we have to ensure that young people do not have easy access to weapons; not only firearms but bomb making material.
Source: www.hillary2000.org, “Safe Schools” Sep 9, 2000

License and register all handgun sales

Hillary Rodham Clinton offered her support for a legislative proposal to license hand guns. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer, would require anyone who wants to purchase a gun to obtain a state-issued photo gun license. “I stand in support of this common sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun,” Clinton said. “I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry, such as Chuck is proposing.”
Source: CNN.com Jun 2, 2000

Tough gun control keeps guns out of wrong hands

I think it does once again urge us to think hard about what we can do to make sure that we keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals and mentally unbalanced people. I hope we will come together as a nation and do whatever it takes to keep guns away from people who have no business with them.
Source: Press Release Jul 31, 1999

Gun control protects our children

We will not make progress on a sensible gun control agenda unless the entire American public gets behind it. It is really important for each of you [kids] to make sure you stay away from guns. If you have guns in your home, tell your parents to keep them away from you and your friends and your little brothers and sisters.
Source: Forum at South Side Middle School in Nassau County Jul 15, 1999



http://www.issues200...htm#Gun_Control

http://www.issues200...Gun_Control.htm

Well clearly Hillary believes in gun control, especially when children are concerned. However I don`t see any statement from her saying she "wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment". Can you provide a link where she has ever actually said this?


View PostSpidey, on Sep 14 2006, 05:58 PM, said:

However, I am just saying that it would not be good to run out praising Hillary for her "good deed".  It ain't.

Why not. I think anyone even someone who`s political views I disagree with, deserves crediit when they do something good. And do you really think those that are sick and in need will really give a damn who provided that help. I doubt they see this as a political issue.


edited to comply with guidelines.

Edited by Shalamar, 17 September 2006 - 11:00 AM.


#49 standish

standish
  • Islander
  • 72 posts

Posted 15 September 2006 - 01:53 PM

[quote name='Lin731' date='Sep 14 2006, 07:43 PM' post='897636']
[quote]What makes those who were there on that day more deserving of the extra help than others for whom similar circumstances happened some other time and place? To give the extra help to some such people but not others is unfair preferential treatment[/quote]

What makes them more deserving? For me it is the fact that they were lied to by the EPA (if I'm not mistaken on the orders of the Bush administration). They breathed in that toxic mess for days, weeks, months, believing the BS put out by our government that the air was safe. It wasn't safe, they were deliberately lied to and that lie took the choice of risking permanent health problems and possibly death out of those peoples hands. Had those people known the danger they were in, the possible longterm health risks they were incurring, how many of them would have continued to breath that mess in at close range?

[quote]It is easy to bash him. But again, she's a Senator, a Senator who has put nothing constructive on the table that I know of.[/quote]


The EPA LIED???  You mean they weren't just WRONG?  Or even incompetent (something not uncommon among government agencies)?  No, no.  They LIED, the evil scum!!  Let's all use the most imflamatory invectives we can.  Nothing stirs those old emotions more than the word LIE.  Put the bastards on the defensive.  Yeah, that's it.

Or HATE for that matter.

#50 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 15 September 2006 - 07:05 PM

Quote

The EPA LIED??? You mean they weren't just WRONG? Or even incompetent (something not uncommon among government agencies)? No, no. They LIED, the evil scum!! Let's all use the most imflamatory invectives we can. Nothing stirs those old emotions more than the word LIE. Put the bastards on the defensive. Yeah, that's it.

Or HATE for that matter.


It's not about "stirring emotions up" although clearly it put your panties in a knot. :eek2:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3076626

Quote

Sept. 11, 2003 - Two years after the World Trade Center attacks, New Yorkers say they’re outraged by reports that the White House influenced the Environmental Protection Agency to downplay hazards posed by the toxic dust that fell in an avalanche over the city. The EPA’s acting chief defends the agency’s actions after the attacks, saying it hopes to be better prepared for “the next time.”

However, a report by the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General released on Aug. 21 states, among other criticisms, that the White House reviewed and even changed EPA statements about public health risks to make them sound less alarming. The report charges that the White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced “the information EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones.” The report cites “reopening Wall Street” and “national security” as reasons for the spin.





http://www.cbsnews.c...in1276366.shtml

Quote

A judge attacked former Environmental Protection Agency chief Christine Todd Whitman for reassuring Manhattan residents soon after the 2001 terrorist attacks that the environment was safe to return to homes and offices while toxic dust was polluting the neighborhood.

"No reasonable person would have thought that telling thousands of people that it was safe to return to lower Manhattan, while knowing that such return could pose long-term health risks and other dire consequences, was conduct sanctioned by our laws," U.S. District Judge Deborah A. Batts wrote, calling Whitman's actions "conscience-shocking."

Whitman spokeswoman Heather Grizzle said Thursday that the former New Jersey governor had no comment. Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said the government had no comment either. EPA spokeswoman Mary Mears said the EPA was reviewing the lengthy opinion.

Batts refused to grant Whitman immunity against a class-action lawsuit brought in 2004 by residents, students and workers in lower Manhattan and Brooklyn who said they were exposed to hazardous dust and debris after the Sept. 11, 2001 attack.

Yep just making stuff up to stir the pot :sarcasm:  Maybe next time ya might try reading up a little before ya jump all over me. It was all over the news when the reports came out.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#51 Norville

Norville
  • Islander
  • 4,501 posts

Posted 15 September 2006 - 07:29 PM

When I first glanced at the title, I thought, "$1.98? That's cheap. ...Ohh, that's a B for billion, not an 8." ;)

Spidey said:

You picked the right handle for yourself ScottEVill...

Uh-huh. It stands for East Village, but one can read into it what one pleases, I'm sure. ;)

Why don't you answer his question, "And why is ambition a bad word only when it's applied to women?"? I'd like to know that.

...Eh, no, I'm not *that* interested in trying to answer that question these days, never mind. I'd more like to know why it's now an evil idea to offer any help to the people who destroyed their lungs working on the WTC pile, just because the idea's coming from the Clinton chick. (I don't like her, either, but this thread is bringing out the contrarian in me.)

Spidey said:

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: ScottEVill.

Ahhh...much better, :)

Yeah, I see the game being played here. Never mind, then. Please feel free to ignore me and I'll do the same for you.

Lin said:

It was all over the news when the reports came out.

Also, a book came out in 2002 about the danger of the dust. I read it at the time. *digs around for title* Fallout: The Environmental Consequences of the World Trade Center Collapse by Juan Gonzalez.
"The dew has fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning."
- Marvin the Paranoid Android, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Rules for Surviving an Autocracy
Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
http://www.nybooks.c...s-for-survival/

#52 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 15 September 2006 - 07:42 PM

View PostLin731, on Sep 15 2006, 05:05 PM, said:

Quote

The EPA LIED??? You mean they weren't just WRONG? Or even incompetent (something not uncommon among government agencies)? No, no. They LIED, the evil scum!! Let's all use the most imflamatory invectives we can. Nothing stirs those old emotions more than the word LIE. Put the bastards on the defensive. Yeah, that's it.

Or HATE for that matter.


It's not about "stirring emotions up" although clearly it put your panties in a knot. :eek2:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3076626

Quote

Sept. 11, 2003 - Two years after the World Trade Center attacks, New Yorkers say they’re outraged by reports that the White House influenced the Environmental Protection Agency to downplay hazards posed by the toxic dust that fell in an avalanche over the city. The EPA’s acting chief defends the agency’s actions after the attacks, saying it hopes to be better prepared for “the next time.”

However, a report by the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General released on Aug. 21 states, among other criticisms, that the White House reviewed and even changed EPA statements about public health risks to make them sound less alarming. The report charges that the White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced “the information EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones.” The report cites “reopening Wall Street” and “national security” as reasons for the spin.





http://www.cbsnews.c...in1276366.shtml

Quote

A judge attacked former Environmental Protection Agency chief Christine Todd Whitman for reassuring Manhattan residents soon after the 2001 terrorist attacks that the environment was safe to return to homes and offices while toxic dust was polluting the neighborhood.

"No reasonable person would have thought that telling thousands of people that it was safe to return to lower Manhattan, while knowing that such return could pose long-term health risks and other dire consequences, was conduct sanctioned by our laws," U.S. District Judge Deborah A. Batts wrote, calling Whitman's actions "conscience-shocking."

Whitman spokeswoman Heather Grizzle said Thursday that the former New Jersey governor had no comment. Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said the government had no comment either. EPA spokeswoman Mary Mears said the EPA was reviewing the lengthy opinion.

Batts refused to grant Whitman immunity against a class-action lawsuit brought in 2004 by residents, students and workers in lower Manhattan and Brooklyn who said they were exposed to hazardous dust and debris after the Sept. 11, 2001 attack.

Yep just making stuff up to stir the pot :sarcasm:  Maybe next time ya might try reading up a little before ya jump all over me. It was all over the news when the reports came out.

Hee hee.

She tried to say the other night that she never said ground zero was safe.  No siree.  The newsman just looked at her, dumbfounded, and asked her which of the many available clips of her saying how safe it was she'd like him to cue first. She flat out lied. She didn't even hedge waiting for real data. She just lied. And she ought to be prosecuted, because that lie has put a lot of people's lives in danger.

I don't know where you live, Spidey, but where I come from that's not ok. Frankly, just one damn time I'd like to see one of the liars in the Bush administration do some hard time for perjury. Bush ought to have been impeached long since. This woman endangered a lot of people who are now paying for her misinformation with their lives. Far as I'm concerned, jail's too damn good for her. Those people are heroes, and they deserved better.

Edited by Rhea, 15 September 2006 - 07:49 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#53 standish

standish
  • Islander
  • 72 posts

Posted 15 September 2006 - 07:53 PM

View PostRhea, on Sep 15 2006, 05:42 PM, said:

View PostLin731, on Sep 15 2006, 05:05 PM, said:

Quote

The EPA LIED??? You mean they weren't just WRONG? Or even incompetent (something not uncommon among government agencies)? No, no. They LIED, the evil scum!! Let's all use the most imflamatory invectives we can. Nothing stirs those old emotions more than the word LIE. Put the bastards on the defensive. Yeah, that's it.

Or HATE for that matter.


It's not about "stirring emotions up" although clearly it put your panties in a knot. :eek2:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3076626

Quote

Sept. 11, 2003 - Two years after the World Trade Center attacks, New Yorkers say they’re outraged by reports that the White House influenced the Environmental Protection Agency to downplay hazards posed by the toxic dust that fell in an avalanche over the city. The EPA’s acting chief defends the agency’s actions after the attacks, saying it hopes to be better prepared for “the next time.”

However, a report by the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General released on Aug. 21 states, among other criticisms, that the White House reviewed and even changed EPA statements about public health risks to make them sound less alarming. The report charges that the White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced “the information EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones.” The report cites “reopening Wall Street” and “national security” as reasons for the spin.





http://www.cbsnews.c...in1276366.shtml

Quote

A judge attacked former Environmental Protection Agency chief Christine Todd Whitman for reassuring Manhattan residents soon after the 2001 terrorist attacks that the environment was safe to return to homes and offices while toxic dust was polluting the neighborhood.

"No reasonable person would have thought that telling thousands of people that it was safe to return to lower Manhattan, while knowing that such return could pose long-term health risks and other dire consequences, was conduct sanctioned by our laws," U.S. District Judge Deborah A. Batts wrote, calling Whitman's actions "conscience-shocking."

Whitman spokeswoman Heather Grizzle said Thursday that the former New Jersey governor had no comment. Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said the government had no comment either. EPA spokeswoman Mary Mears said the EPA was reviewing the lengthy opinion.

Batts refused to grant Whitman immunity against a class-action lawsuit brought in 2004 by residents, students and workers in lower Manhattan and Brooklyn who said they were exposed to hazardous dust and debris after the Sept. 11, 2001 attack.

Yep just making stuff up to stir the pot :sarcasm:  Maybe next time ya might try reading up a little before ya jump all over me. It was all over the news when the reports came out.

Hee hee.

She tried to say the other night that she never said ground zero was safe.  No siree.  The newsman just looked at her, dumbfounded, and asked her which of the many available clips of her saying how safe it was she'd like him to cue first. She flat out lied. She didn't even hedge waiting for real data. She just lied. And she ought to be prosecuted, because that lie has put a lot of people's lives in danger.

I don't know where you live, Spidey, but where I come from that's not ok.



I repeat.  Lied, or just wrong and/or incompetent?  I see nothing here to indicate lies.  Please tell me the motivation for lying about something like this?

'Lie' and 'hate' are the two most abused words in politics.

It isn't a lie just because you want it to be one.

#54 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 15 September 2006 - 07:59 PM

View PostRhea, on Sep 15 2006, 08:42 PM, said:

[Whitman] tried to say the other night that she never said ground zero was safe.  No siree.  The newsman just looked at her, dumbfounded, and asked her which of the many available clips of her saying how safe it was she'd like him to cue first.

Imagine if they managed to do that when Bush was in the chair.  I thought he was gonna slug David Gregory at the Rose Garden Press Conference today.  He was so pissed off, he was practically shaking.  He's like Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men: he wants to tell us what he did (ordering torture).

He knows what's best, and he resents having to pretend to give a crap about little things like law.  He is the law.  We "sleep under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way."

Quote

She flat out lied. She didn't even hedge waiting for real data. She just lied. And she ought to be prosecuted, because that lie has put a lot of people's lives in danger.

I don't think she was acting on her own.  Do you?

Edited by ScottEVill, 15 September 2006 - 08:00 PM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#55 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 15 September 2006 - 08:07 PM

View PostScottEVill, on Sep 15 2006, 05:59 PM, said:

View PostRhea, on Sep 15 2006, 08:42 PM, said:

[Whitman] tried to say the other night that she never said ground zero was safe.  No siree.  The newsman just looked at her, dumbfounded, and asked her which of the many available clips of her saying how safe it was she'd like him to cue first.

Imagine if they managed to do that when Bush was in the chair.  I thought he was gonna slug David Gregory at the Rose Garden Press Conference today.  He was so pissed off, he was practically shaking.  He's like Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men: he wants to tell us what he did (ordering torture).

He knows what's best, and he resents having to pretend to give a crap about little things like law.  He is the law.  We "sleep under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way."

Quote

She flat out lied. She didn't even hedge waiting for real data. She just lied. And she ought to be prosecuted, because that lie has put a lot of people's lives in danger.

I don't think she was acting on her own.  Do you?

Nope. But how the misinformation was dissimenated is irrelevant at this point to the fact that it WAS disseminated, these people thought they were safe, and now they're dying. And she was the point person. If she can stand there and bald-faced lie now, why not then? And since it was the federal government who assured them that you betcha, there was nothing harmful at ground zero, they ought to be the ones to make it right now.

Edited by Rhea, 15 September 2006 - 08:08 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#56 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 15 September 2006 - 10:34 PM

Quote

I repeat. Lied, or just wrong and/or incompetent? I see nothing here to indicate lies. Please tell me the motivation for lying about something like this?

'Lie' and 'hate' are the two most abused words in politics.

It isn't a lie just because you want it to be one.

Pretending the articles don't point to that very thing won't change them either. Changing and downplaying the risks, is the same thing as lying. Pushing the EPA to pump out convienant platatudes to reassure the public that the air was AOK, IS lying. From the same msnbc peice:

Quote

The EPA presented “an overriding message that there was no significant threat to human health” even though there was cause for caution, it concluded.

“When EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air was ‘safe’ to breathe, it did not have sufficient data and analyses to make such a blanket statement,” said the OIG
, adding that the agency was missing data on other pollutants, such as particulates and chemicals like PCBs. In addition, 25 percent of dust samples contained asbestos, a potent carcinogen.

So you polish that turd however you like, it's still just a turd and a lie by any other name is still a lie. When you "review and change" an EPA announcement on the safety of the air, when you pressure them to downplay the risks, you're LYING.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#57 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 15 September 2006 - 11:34 PM

View PostRhea, on Sep 15 2006, 06:30 AM, said:

View PostNonny, on Sep 14 2006, 09:11 PM, said:

I guess America's hardest working, above and beyond the call of duty heroes are the new Welfare Queens.   :(  :(  :(   Bust your gut, ruin your health, earn the undying gratitude?  Not with neocons running the show.   :angry:  :angry:  :angry:

Not only that, it's the same half-assed argument people made when Viet Nam veterams started showing up with massive adverse affects from Agent Orange. It's the same argument that some people have made for ignoring Gulf War Syndrome.

If a civilization is truly measured by how it takes care of its children, its elderly and its disabled, there are some people in this country (and in this forum) coming up way short.
I've said that America prefers its veterans dead or healthy.  I guess I should extend that to emergency workers.   :unsure:  :(  :angry:

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#58 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 15 September 2006 - 11:38 PM

View PostScottEVill, on Sep 15 2006, 05:59 PM, said:

View PostRhea, on Sep 15 2006, 08:42 PM, said:

[Whitman] tried to say the other night that she never said ground zero was safe.  No siree.  The newsman just looked at her, dumbfounded, and asked her which of the many available clips of her saying how safe it was she'd like him to cue first.

Imagine if they managed to do that when Bush was in the chair.  I thought he was gonna slug David Gregory at the Rose Garden Press Conference today.  He was so pissed off, he was practically shaking.  He's like Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men: he wants to tell us what he did (ordering torture).

He knows what's best, and he resents having to pretend to give a crap about little things like law.  He is the law.  We "sleep under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way."
Did it sound like he was saying, "If you don't give me the right to torture prisioners, I'll stop torturing them and then you'll be sorry" to you too?  

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#59 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 15 September 2006 - 11:52 PM

View PostNonny, on Sep 16 2006, 12:38 AM, said:

View PostScottEVill, on Sep 15 2006, 05:59 PM, said:

View PostRhea, on Sep 15 2006, 08:42 PM, said:

[Whitman] tried to say the other night that she never said ground zero was safe.  No siree.  The newsman just looked at her, dumbfounded, and asked her which of the many available clips of her saying how safe it was she'd like him to cue first.

Imagine if they managed to do that when Bush was in the chair.  I thought he was gonna slug David Gregory at the Rose Garden Press Conference today.  He was so pissed off, he was practically shaking.  He's like Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men: he wants to tell us what he did (ordering torture).

He knows what's best, and he resents having to pretend to give a crap about little things like law.  He is the law.  We "sleep under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way."
Did it sound like he was saying, "If you don't give me the right to torture prisioners, I'll stop torturing them and then you'll be sorry" to you too?  

Nonny

*Totally*.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#60 standish

standish
  • Islander
  • 72 posts

Posted 16 September 2006 - 03:31 AM

View PostLin731, on Sep 15 2006, 08:34 PM, said:

So you polish that turd however you like, it's still just a turd and a lie by any other name is still a lie. When you "review and change" an EPA announcement on the safety of the air, when you pressure them to downplay the risks, you're LYING.


Maybe I'm not stating my case clearly here.  What they did was wrong, and it was incompetence.  You're going a step further and are claiming they lied, which is to say they KNEW there was a hazard because they had the initial report, and stated otherwise.  But, if they didn't believe the initial report when they ordered it changed, it's not a lie.  Period.

Only if they received the initial report, believed every word of it, and then ordered the change, can it be considered a lie.  Maybe this happened, but no one has provided me with any proof in the form of motivation for them to lie.  Considering the inevitable fallout from a mistake like this, I'd think there was in fact considerable motivation for them NOT to lie.  Can you explain to me what possible gain could be reaped by lying in this instance?

I can't see any political gain for lying about this.  If you know of any, please enlighten me.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Senate, Senator Clinton, 2006, 9/11 sick

1 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users