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

#61 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 16 September 2006 - 11:04 AM

Quote

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.

From all that I've read, they didn't change the report because they didn't believe it but because it interferred with getting the city back up and running...hense they're motivation for lying as indicated by the report. The administration wanted/needed Wall Street up and running and the EPA's report (pre-editing) would have hindered that. Not only that but how do you get people going back to their homes and jobs in the area if they believe their health is at risk. How do you get workers to continue the clean up and rescue efforts (minus proper protective gear) if they know the risks they may be incurring to their health? Even during the clean up of buildings in the area, they didn't test buildings for anything but asbestos, didn't clean out filtration systems within buildings, only cleaned buildings upon request/demand. So how they can claim with a straight face that they've "cleaned up" the contaminates in buildings when they only tested for asbestos and nothing else, didn't clean filtration systems and didn't clean all the apartments....I fear we'll see alot more sick and dying New Yorkers over the coming years.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#62 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 16 September 2006 - 11:08 AM

View Poststandish, on Sep 16 2006, 04:31 AM, said:

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.

It's impossible to know what was in their hearts and minds (or, for that matter, in anyone's).  But, by that standard, no court in the land could ever win a conviction.  The standard is reasonable doubt, and by that standard, it's easy to conclude that they lied.  In my opinion, it's impossible to conclude otherwise.

Why?  Because they were told that the science concluded one thing, then turned around and--ignoring those facts--announced the polar opposite of that thing to the world, including to the rescue workers, who are now dropping like flies.  

Quote

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.

If they had told the truth, the result would've been chaos.  Rescue and cleanup operations would have been halted.  People would not have been allowed to return to their homes.  Ground Zero would've encompassed not just the WTC site, but all of Lower Manhattan, which would've been looted while the authorities waited for the air to return to safe levels.

They lied because they wanted to project the image that America was in control... that the attack didn't hurt us as badly as it seemed... that it was safe to return to Lower Manhattan... and that the fianancial capital of the world had not been destroyed, but would be back up and running before we knew it.  

In short: "...nothing to see here..."

Edited by ScottEVill, 16 September 2006 - 11:13 AM.

Quote

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

#63 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 16 September 2006 - 12:22 PM

Scott said:

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."

I couldn't believe how he lost it with the Press, and I had the same thoughts re: "A Few Good Men".  It appeared to me that he wanted us all to just let him do what he thinks is best and shut up about how he does it.

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.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#64 Captain Jack

Captain Jack

    Where's the rum?

  • Islander
  • 14,914 posts

Posted 16 September 2006 - 11:01 PM

View PostCait, on Sep 16 2006, 10:22 AM, said:

Scott said:

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."

I couldn't believe how he lost it with the Press, and I had the same thoughts re: "A Few Good Men".  It appeared to me that he wanted us all to just let him do what he thinks is best and shut up about how he does it.

I could.  He's like a child.  And not even his own party is going to back him on what he wants to do, and I agree.  He's been wanting us to just let him do what he thinks is best and shut up about how he does it since 9/11.  Doing things his way has gotten us in a whole new set of messes that really hurts the U.S. in so many ways it's tough to figure out where to even begin.
Posted Image
689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama in 2012:

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

#65 standish

standish
  • Islander
  • 72 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 01:49 PM

Okay.  I asked for proof.  What I got was speculation.  You're certainly entitled to your opinions, but I remain unconvinced.

But, since speculation is the order of the day, here's a little for some of you.  From reading some of your comments, I've come to believe that in your minds, simply saying they were incompetent wasn't good enough.  People who are simply "wrong" or "incompetent" can still be viewed as well-intentioned or decent.  They aren't necessarily horrid or evil people.  In order for you to paint them with that brush, they need to have LIED.  And, I now believe that some of you WANT to believe that these are evil and horrid people.  Maybe some of you even need to believe it.

I certainly believe there are evil people in this world.  But, I've seen enough decent folks categorized that way falsely.  So, I give the benefit the of the doubt until proven otherwise.  Maybe I'm naive.  But, I do know that the quick rush to hyperbole only serves to lessen any chance of reasonable debate on issues.

#66 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 02:11 PM

Quote

Okay. I asked for proof. What I got was speculation. You're certainly entitled to your opinions, but I remain unconvinced.

It's been my observation that people that don't want to believe a thing are unlikely to, no matter how much evidence is presented. One thing is crystal clear from the evidence. The Bush administration reviewed and changed the wording on the EPA announcement to downplay the risks. That's not refuted anywhere. The findings clearly stated they reviewed and changed the wording to make it less scary. Personally, their motives for doing so are of no concern to me, the fact that they did it IS. In changing the wording to downplay the potential risks, they misled people.

Quote

But, since speculation is the order of the day, here's a little for some of you. From reading some of your comments, I've come to believe that in your minds, simply saying they were incompetent wasn't good enough. People who are simply "wrong" or "incompetent" can still be viewed as well-intentioned or decent. They aren't necessarily horrid or evil people. In order for you to paint them with that brush, they need to have LIED. And, I now believe that some of you WANT to believe that these are evil and horrid people. Maybe some of you even need to believe it.

Incompetent implies a lack of knowledge. In this case, the knowledge (to a degree was there) afterall they DID know there was asbestos in the air and yet they allowed the administration to rewrite the results to downplay the risks. That's not my definition of "incompetent". Wrong likewise implies they didn't know but they did know there were hazards involve and still bent to the will of the administration to make the findings less scary and to provide "reassurances to the public" even if they lacked the data to make such claims. There's no "speculation" on those points. Regardless of what the motives were, they allowed the administration to rewrite their findings and bowed to pressure to provide reassurances not backed by data.

Quote

I certainly believe there are evil people in this world. But, I've seen enough decent folks categorized that way falsely. So, I give the benefit the of the doubt until proven otherwise. Maybe I'm naive. But, I do know that the quick rush to hyperbole only serves to lessen any chance of reasonable debate on issues

I often give the benefit of the doubt myself but I look at this administrations history (it's not the first time they've interferred with, blocked info or changes it to suit their agenda) and I judge them on what I've seen them do all too many times.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#67 Captain Jack

Captain Jack

    Where's the rum?

  • Islander
  • 14,914 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 02:52 PM

Proof can be found online.  Google it.  Besides, I feel it would be a waste of my time to bother giving you folks anything credible since ya'll sem to want to debunk anything and everything because you see Hillary as being some Democratic savior.  She is not.  I see her for what she really is.  Simple as that.  If she persued things with sincere conviction, I would have no problem with it.  But she doesn't.  Not because she is a woman, or any lame excuse like that.  I am neither Democrat or Republican.  I'm an Independant.  Right now, neither party (Reps and Dems) have been up to the tasks of doing the right things.  She's one of them.  She takes pot shots at the President any chance she gets.  I don't mind that much.  In fact, good for her.  What I do mind is she offers nothing.  No ideas of her own.  No contributions of he she things the Prez should/could have done things better.  And basically, this isn't about the folks getting help.  They should have helped them a long time ago.  Meanwhile, New Orleans is still overlooked, and is still in ruins.  Last time I checked, NO is still part of the United States.
Posted Image
689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama in 2012:

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

#68 Captain Jack

Captain Jack

    Where's the rum?

  • Islander
  • 14,914 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 03:01 PM

Her proposal failed.  Just an FYI:

http://www.ny1.com/n...s...3&aid=62640

And another if that isn't good enough for you folks:

http://www.myrtlebea...cs/15524666.htm

Edited by Spidey, 17 September 2006 - 03:04 PM.

Posted Image
689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama in 2012:

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

#69 Tricia

Tricia

    To err on the side of kindness is seldom an error.

  • Islander
  • 10,245 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 03:20 PM

View PostSpidey, on Sep 17 2006, 01:52 PM, said:

She takes pot shots at the President any chance she gets.  I don't mind that much.  In fact, good for her.  What I do mind is she offers nothing.  No ideas of her own.  No contributions of he she things the Prez should/could have done things better.  And basically, this isn't about the folks getting help.  They should have helped them a long time ago.  Meanwhile, New Orleans is still overlooked, and is still in ruins.  Last time I checked, NO is still part of the United States.

Considering how cozy and friendly the Bushes and the Clintons are most of the time....and much has been made of the fact that they are friends, at least Bill and Papa Bush....I no longer believe any of that potshots stuff.  

That is all for show unless someone wants to explain to me how they can be such friends and say such things about each other.

New Orleans is not the only problem we have in this country.  It's one of the most obvious ones.  But does it do any good to act as if Hillary should take on all of those problems when Bush and no one else seems to want to either?

They'd rather spend all of the money on Iraq.  

I checked the site that lists that said that it was enough (at that moment anyway) to pay the salaries of over 5.5 million teachers for a year!!

Cost of War

That money could have done so much here for so many people...including the people of New Orleans....

Edited by trikay, 17 September 2006 - 03:21 PM.

In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. --Thich Nhat Hanh


You don't need to attend every argument you are invited to


Do not ask that your kids live up to your expectations.  Let your kids be who they are, and your expectations will be in breathless pursuit.


#70 Gabrielles Army

Gabrielles Army
  • Islander
  • 116 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 03:28 PM

View PostSpidey, on Sep 17 2006, 12:52 PM, said:

Proof can be found online.  Google it.  Besides, I feel it would be a waste of my time to bother giving you folks anything credible since ya'll sem to want to debunk anything and everything because you see Hillary as being some Democratic savior. She is not.  I see her for what she really is.  Simple as that.  If she persued things with sincere conviction, I would have no problem with it.  But she doesn't.  Not because she is a woman, or any lame excuse like that.  I am neither Democrat or Republican.  I'm an Independant.  Right now, neither party (Reps and Dems) have been up to the tasks of doing the right things.  She's one of them.  She takes pot shots at the President any chance she gets.  I don't mind that much.  In fact, good for her.  What I do mind is she offers nothing.  No ideas of her own.  No contributions of he she things the Prez should/could have done things better.  And basically, this isn't about the folks getting help.  They should have helped them a long time ago.  Meanwhile, New Orleans is still overlooked, and is still in ruins.  Last time I checked, NO is still part of the United States.


Well your the one accusing Hillary of trying to take away your constitutional rights, we`re just asking you to back up that accusation with some actual facts, rather than just opinion. Funny doesn`t seem too much to ask to me.  As for Hillary being some savior, well I seem to remember that more than one poster here stated that they were not a Hillary fan but we`re simply giving her credit for trying to do the right thing on this issue. Now while Hillary maybe no savior I highly doubt she`s quite the evil devil you seem to be trying to make her out as either. Finally it seems you want to have it both ways, you complain that she doesn`t do enough, yet when she does something for people you complain about her motives.

#71 Captain Jack

Captain Jack

    Where's the rum?

  • Islander
  • 14,914 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 04:05 PM

http://www.theage.co...7827157942.html

Quote

...In this predictable victory, what was interesting was that in the lead-up to the primary vote, Bill Clinton agreed to a major profile in The New Yorker in which he defends his wife's 2002 vote giving George Bush the power to go to war in Iraq ...

For some one who is against the war, why did she vote for it in the first place?

http://www.nypost.co...gionalnews_.htm

Very Interesting one:
http://www.nydailyne...4p-380077c.html

Other people's views:
http://www.nypost.co...cathy_burke.htm

And they say Kerry is a flip-flopper:
http://www.nydailyne...0p-379153c.html

http://www.nydailyne...8p-378799c.html

Flip-flops again:
http://www.businessd...x?ID=BD4A264194

And again:
http://www.nypost.co...rrespondent.htm

How can one trust some one who changes sides/ideals at the drop of a hat?  

http://www.nypost.co...editorials_.htm

I don't agree with her here.  Let Israel deal with their own issues.  We are not the world's police, nor should we be:
http://publicbroadca...amp;sectionID=1

http://www.boston.co...lary_cant_hide/

http://www.nypost.co...rrespondent.htm

http://www.cbsnews.c...in1741054.shtml

http://www.nysun.com/article/34721

Interesting book:  "The Truth About Hillary," by Edward Klein

Edited by Spidey, 17 September 2006 - 04:07 PM.

Posted Image
689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama in 2012:

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

#72 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 06:54 PM

First of all, I'm another "not a Hillary fan."

But I'm curious about this:

Quote

Spidey: Hillary wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment. I have a real problem with that.

I'd have problems with it, too. But I can't find any evidence that she wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment and would be interested to see any.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#73 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 07:10 PM

I think the problem on that one is that you're taking a metaphor literally.

#74 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 07:43 PM

Maybe so.

It's hard to tell when people are speaking metaphorically in today's political climate. So I didn't think there was any harm in asking.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#75 Captain Jack

Captain Jack

    Where's the rum?

  • Islander
  • 14,914 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 08:48 PM

View PostSpectacles, on Sep 17 2006, 04:54 PM, said:

First of all, I'm another "not a Hillary fan."

But I'm curious about this:

Quote

Spidey: Hillary wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment. I have a real problem with that.

I'd have problems with it, too. But I can't find any evidence that she wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment and would be interested to see any.


View PostDelvo, on Sep 17 2006, 05:10 PM, said:

I think the problem on that one is that you're taking a metaphor literally.

Hillary is not one to just flat out say she is going to "abolish the 2nd Amendment".  That would cause too much controversy, and the NRA would certainly get after her big time.  So, instead, she tries to increase more and more rules reguarding guns.  In terms of classifying who can own what kind, how many, and if it could be of a certain kind.  Keep adding more and more restrictions, and basically, the 2nd Amendment disappears.

Hillary had nothing to do with this, but I would like to use it as an example.  When NO was hit by Katrina, folks whose homes were damaged or destroyed tried protecting their belongings from looters.  Their guns were unlawfully confiscated by officials for no reason, and many are still not returned.  NO claims it knows nothing of this, but the NRA does, and if fighting for law abiding citizens there still.

When Clinton was President, he (and Hillary mostly) pushed for assault weapons ban nationwide.  Personally, I'm not a big fan of "assault" weapons, but the term was used to a much broader scale classifying non-assault weapons as assault weapons just to get as many off the market as possible.

Law abiding citizens should not be punished, or denied owning weapons.  Violent criminals should be the target, and they're not.

New York has had a number of new gun restrictions in the last few years since Hillary and Bloomberg.  Bloomberg even outlawed painting weapons bright colors which makes absolutely no sense.  But it's at least one more law in the books for gun restrictions.

I am not a hunter, nor am I a nut job killer.  I like to go to the range and have at it putting holes on paper.  I find it fun.  I've only been doing this hobby for about a year and a half.  But I enjoy it.  I choose to have one for self defense in the home.  Don't expect anything.  Don't want anything to happen.  Don't want to hurt anyone.  Most importantly, don't want to be hurt, or have any one I love get hurt by some nut job with nothing good on his mind.  I don't find it right when some one says I can't do this.
Posted Image
689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama in 2012:

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

#76 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 18 September 2006 - 12:02 AM

View PostSpidey, on Sep 17 2006, 06:48 PM, said:

View PostSpectacles, on Sep 17 2006, 04:54 PM, said:

First of all, I'm another "not a Hillary fan."

But I'm curious about this:

Quote

Spidey: Hillary wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment. I have a real problem with that.

I'd have problems with it, too. But I can't find any evidence that she wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment and would be interested to see any.


View PostDelvo, on Sep 17 2006, 05:10 PM, said:

I think the problem on that one is that you're taking a metaphor literally.

Hillary is not one to just flat out say she is going to "abolish the 2nd Amendment".  That would cause too much controversy, and the NRA would certainly get after her big time.  So, instead, she tries to increase more and more rules reguarding guns.  In terms of classifying who can own what kind, how many, and if it could be of a certain kind.  Keep adding more and more restrictions, and basically, the 2nd Amendment disappears.

Hillary had nothing to do with this, but I would like to use it as an example.  When NO was hit by Katrina, folks whose homes were damaged or destroyed tried protecting their belongings from looters.  Their guns were unlawfully confiscated by officials for no reason, and many are still not returned.  NO claims it knows nothing of this, but the NRA does, and if fighting for law abiding citizens there still.

When Clinton was President, he (and Hillary mostly) pushed for assault weapons ban nationwide.  Personally, I'm not a big fan of "assault" weapons, but the term was used to a much broader scale classifying non-assault weapons as assault weapons just to get as many off the market as possible.

Law abiding citizens should not be punished, or denied owning weapons.  Violent criminals should be the target, and they're not.

New York has had a number of new gun restrictions in the last few years since Hillary and Bloomberg.  Bloomberg even outlawed painting weapons bright colors which makes absolutely no sense.  But it's at least one more law in the books for gun restrictions.

I am not a hunter, nor am I a nut job killer.  I like to go to the range and have at it putting holes on paper.  I find it fun.  I've only been doing this hobby for about a year and a half.  But I enjoy it.  I choose to have one for self defense in the home.  Don't expect anything.  Don't want anything to happen.  Don't want to hurt anyone.  Most importantly, don't want to be hurt, or have any one I love get hurt by some nut job with nothing good on his mind.  I don't find it right when some one says I can't do this.


"Law abiding" citizens should not need automatic weapons. Period. Nobody needs automatic weapons to play with at home.
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

#77 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 18 September 2006 - 12:07 AM

View PostSpidey, on Sep 17 2006, 02:05 PM, said:

http://www.theage.co...7827157942.html

Quote

...In this predictable victory, what was interesting was that in the lead-up to the primary vote, Bill Clinton agreed to a major profile in The New Yorker in which he defends his wife's 2002 vote giving George Bush the power to go to war in Iraq ...

For some one who is against the war, why did she vote for it in the first place?

http://www.nypost.co...gionalnews_.htm



She voted for the war for the same reason that virtually ever other member of the House and Senate voted for it: they believed the lies told by the Bush administration about sure and certain knowledge of WMD's. Bush hoaxed the whole country. Were the people who voted for the war supposed to be psychic? And the Bush administration has famously not briefed anyone not of their own party that they didn't absolutely have to.

Senator Byrd may have had his flaws, but he was dead right about the war in Iraq and he was one of the few people who voted against it:

Quote

On March 19, 2003, when Bush ordered the invasion after receiving U.S. Congressional approval, Byrd stated:

"Today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned. Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination."

Byrd also criticized Bush for his speech declaring the "end of major combat operations" in Iraq, which Bush made on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. Byrd stated on the Senate floor:

"I do question the motives of a deskbound president who assumes the garb of a warrior for the purposes of a speech."

If you're going to accuse Hilary of flip-flopping on the war, perhaps you had better include a substantial portion of the House and Senate who have also changed their minds about the war based on the fact that they were fed lies and distortions (and the Bush administration is trying the same tactics now with Iran). That includes many of your party who also feel that Bush lied to them or distorted the facts in order to get them to vote for the war.

Edited by Rhea, 18 September 2006 - 12:15 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

#78 Captain Jack

Captain Jack

    Where's the rum?

  • Islander
  • 14,914 posts

Posted 18 September 2006 - 12:11 AM

View PostRhea, on Sep 17 2006, 10:02 PM, said:

"Law abiding" citizens should not need automatic weapons. Period. Nobody needs automatic weapons to play with at home.

Yet, who are you to make that decision?  Who is anyone to?  You don't play with weapons at home anyway.  You go to the range where it is safe to play with 'em.  Personally, I choose not to have one because I don't care for them, but would never want to impose that on another who might.

Edited by Spidey, 18 September 2006 - 12:12 AM.

Posted Image
689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama in 2012:

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

#79 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 18 September 2006 - 12:35 AM

View PostSpidey, on Sep 17 2006, 10:11 PM, said:

View PostRhea, on Sep 17 2006, 10:02 PM, said:

"Law abiding" citizens should not need automatic weapons. Period. Nobody needs automatic weapons to play with at home.

Yet, who are you to make that decision?  Who is anyone to?  You don't play with weapons at home anyway.  You go to the range where it is safe to play with 'em.  Personally, I choose not to have one because I don't care for them, but would never want to impose that on another who might.


Then think about this: we have the most lenient gun laws of any of the Western countries and the highest death rate from guns.

http://www.hsph.harv.....2Bcomparison"

This article, based on a study at Harvard, is called "More Guns, More Deaths."

http://www.guncite.c...l_gcgvintl.html

We own more guns in the U.S. than any other western country, and there is a correspondingly higher rate of suicides and homicides from guns.

Wanting stronger gun controls (like the now-expired ban on assault weapons) doesn't mean a person wants to ditch the 2nd amendment - it just means a person is for stronger gun control.

Edited by Rhea, 18 September 2006 - 12:36 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

#80 Captain Jack

Captain Jack

    Where's the rum?

  • Islander
  • 14,914 posts

Posted 18 September 2006 - 12:43 AM

Car accidents beat gun deaths by a wide margin.  I don't buy it.  More training in gun safety has reduced gun accidents.

http://www.usatoday....-gun-deaths.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/n...tats/deaths.htm

Edited by Spidey, 18 September 2006 - 12:51 AM.

Posted Image
689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama in 2012:

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



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

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users