quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

I would be shocked completely out of my mind if sam agreed with you on that.  Especially in the face of the increased grotesque birth defects as a result of the DU.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

It's called "due diligence", something which strictly emotional appeals fail to do.

I wish to point something out here. If the responders had used "due diligence" they never would have responded.

quote:

she has severe respiratory distress when exposed to things ranging from diesel exhaust to perfume. She hasn't worked since 9/11 effectively because office environments make her ill. She can't go near patients if they are potentially wearing perfume or have been exposed to solvents.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

To start a finger pointing war as to whose responsibility it is to ensure the care os these people is, to me, a waste of time they dont have and an embarrassing position for our contry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Thrusting it off on FEMA is just another federal program. Its not making any State responsible.

I believe its the Federal Governments responsibility to look after these people who put their health on the line when a national disaster occured.

If im not mistaken, this was declared a federal emergency due to a terrorists act. That sums it up for me... Government responsibility. But what is happening is that no one is wanting to step forward and accept responsibility for these people. NY isnt at fault, they did nothing wrong. Manhattan isnt at fault. Trying to sue the country whose fault it stemmed from wont work, it was a terrorist group. If we go after the money from the terrorist groups bank accounts, that would b a long legal battle. These people have waited years already and lost much in the process.

Looking at it from that angle, these responders are losing, or have lost, everything, including their health and a portion of their lives. Lets not even go into how many responders lost their lives.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PyrotheClown

Workers comp has failed them miserably, the city has failed them, the state has failed them.. so there's only one place to go now, and that's the fed

they weren't soldiers, yet they got caught up in a war zone

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

That's why I posted my sister's story. In practice what's happened is that my family has been supporting her since 9/11. Is that right? If a soldier comes back wounded from Iraq- who's responsibility is it to care for him/her? If we ask these people to lay their lives on the line in public service, then I think its our obligation- ALL OF US- to ensure that they have a modicum of dignity if they are injured in the course of their duties. Its why I'm so angry about this Republican filibuster, and I think you should be as well. Debate- fine. Filibuster? Basically denying these peoples needs for political gain? Shameful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

I would be shocked completely out of my mind if sam agreed with you on that.  Especially in the face of the increased grotesque birth defects as a result of the DU.

If you wish to argue the effects of DU (or the existence of GWS) please start your own thread.

I've argued both over the last decade, several times (although I don't remember if I've ever done it in the CM forums).  It's been a couple of years since the last time, and maybe there is more evidence now, then there was then, I dunno, but I doubt it.

I may or may not participate in any such thread.

Firm

quote:

Personally, I should think the agencies who employed the people would be the ones to be embarrassed. While I agree that assigning blame after the fact doesn't provide help for those in need, it does establish future expectations and helps to ensure that the situation is not repeated.

quote:

Don't get me wrong, I fully believe that the individuals affected should receive assistance for the damage they've suffered. However, I believe that assistance should be provided immediately by the organization that employed them in the first place.

quote:

The workers themselves should have some plans in place owing to the dangerous and risky occupation they chose. I can see some assistance being provided by the Federal Government due to the shear scope of the event being beyond any normal contingency plans, however.

quote:

I'll concede that the size of the impacted area was exponentially larger, as well as the number of people affected. I'm sure that, plus the general air of panic and uncertainty surely added to an already dangerous situation, as well as complicated logistics. But what I'm trying to understand is where navigating within the vicinity of a collapsed office building is any more health damaging than crawling through the corridors of a burning factory in search of trapped victims. Particularly when firemen are provided equipment to help protect their safety.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

so rml and sambo are very clear.

THere was no issue with 911 responders untill the Repulicans took over power.

And it is a "Hitler Big Lie" to notice that the Dems did not pass this law while they controlled both houses and the presidency (with a filibuster proof majority).

Dems had power and did nothing on this issue, and it was goood. Now they are using it for politics, and that is also good.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

"I'm not against helping the 9/11 responders, and truthfully (without doing a deep analysis of the bill to find out if it actually does what it purports to do) have no problem with it being passed.

quote:


You and others claim that it's been 9 years, and nothing has happened, and therefore it is the Republicans fault, although the Democrats held control of the Congress for the last four years, and a veto proof majority and the Presidency for the last two years ... yet you assign no blame or onus to them.

quote:



I am familar with another case of "something is making everyone sick!" i.e. the dreaded "Gulf War Syndrome" of which I am part of the tracking database, and which has been proven not to exist, despite the massive publicity otherwise.  The same with the "deadly dangers of depleted uranium".  So emotional appeals, no matter how heart-rending, are invalid.  And no one - in the video on from the OP, nor none of the "Republicans are heartless" crowd have offered one iota of real proof that this is anything different in this case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

I would be shocked completely out of my mind if sam agreed with you on that.  Especially in the face of the increased grotesque birth defects as a result of the DU.

If you wish to argue the effects of DU (or the existence of GWS) please start your own thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

You and others claim that it's been 9 years, and nothing has happened, and therefore it is the Republicans fault, although the Democrats held control of the Congress for the last four years, and a veto proof majority and the Presidency for the last two years ... yet you assign no blame or onus to them.

Democrats have been attempting to pass this legislation since 2006.

I'm assuming you are referring to a filibuster-proof majority, and you may want to check your time line on that.

About That Filibuster Proof Majority

Well, let's at least get our history straight.

Until Al Franken was sworn in on July 7, the Democratic caucus in the Senate stood at 59. After that it was technically up to 60, but Ted Kennedy hadn't cast a vote in months and was housebound due to illness.

He died a few weeks later and was replaced by Paul Kirk on September 24, finally bringing the Democratic majority up to 60 in practice as well as theory.

After that the Senate was in session for 11 weeks before taking its winter recess, followed by three weeks until Scott Brown won Kennedy's seat in the Massachusetts special election.

So that means Democrats had an effective filibuster-proof majority for about 14 weeks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

I am familar with another case of "something is making everyone sick!" i.e. the dreaded "Gulf War Syndrome" of which I am part of the tracking database, and which has been proven not to exist, despite the massive publicity otherwise.  The same with the "deadly dangers of depleted uranium".  So emotional appeals, no matter how heart-rending, are invalid.  And no one - in the video on from the OP, nor none of the "Republicans are heartless" crowd have offered one iota of real proof that this is anything different in this case.

Did anyone say that you were supposed to take the video as proof?

This is not secret information.  It is widely available.  This legislation was proposed in the first place on the basis of positive scientific proof. 

Initially the Bush administration denied there was any link between the numerous illnesses and Ground Zero, as did the city of New York, and Congress accepted that for years.

Then people started to die, and the autopsies linked their deaths to breathing in the toxins from the collapsed buildings.

Instead of wringing your hands and saying "Well, we really don't have enough information" why don't you go look it up?

The reality is you don't have enough information, and you are trying to cloud the issue when you admittedly lack knowledge on the subject.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

I would be shocked completely out of my mind if sam agreed with you on that.  Especially in the face of the increased grotesque birth defects as a result of the DU.

If you wish to argue the effects of DU (or the existence of GWS) please start your own thread.

You are telling him to start his own thread when you were the one that brought the subject up?

He was only responding to your post.

More tap dancing, huh Firm?

You bring up something to supposedly back your point then when you get called on it you try to claim it's not relevant to the discussion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Treasure

That's why I posted my sister's story. In practice what's happened is that my family has been supporting her since 9/11. Is that right? If a soldier comes back wounded from Iraq- who's responsibility is it to care for him/her? If we ask these people to lay their lives on the line in public service, then I think its our obligation- ALL OF US- to ensure that they have a modicum of dignity if they are injured in the course of their duties. Its why I'm so angry about this Republican filibuster, and I think you should be as well. Debate- fine. Filibuster? Basically denying these peoples needs for political gain? Shameful.

Sam

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
I brought it up as an illustrative example.  If you and RO wish to discuss it in detail, either start another thread, or get tazzy's permission to discuss it in this thread.  She's the OP, and I defer to her wishes on the subject of what is appropriately "on-topic".

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Im not sure many are aware that some of those responders were off the clock. Regardless, employers wont pay because it was an act of terrorism. Not their fault.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

The workers themselves should have some plans in place owing to the dangerous and risky occupation they chose. I can see some assistance being provided by the Federal Government due to the shear scope of the event being beyond any normal contingency plans, however.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Its not just firemen. Not just EMS workers. All walks of life aided in that event. Nurses, Doctors, Policemen. Some on the clock, some not. And there was not enough equipment to go around.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

So, I guess that the Democrats, while in charge of the Congress, and the Presidency, passed no legislation at all, huh?

quote:



rule, unlike some people I don't pretend to know everything about everything.  When someone starts a thread and takes a position, normally the assumption is that part of the reason is to make other people aware of the issue.

Being an ass, and claiming "everyone knows" seems, then, just to be a method to avoid justifying your position.

All I did was ask simple questions, and only Sam responded in a matter that made any sense to me.  As I said, Sam and I often disagree, but we've never got into pissing contest, because he knows how to present his position and facts, and is an honest person and poster.  That doesn't mean we agree, but it does mean that we respect each others opinion.

Try treating people with whom you disagree with a little respect, and perhaps you'll find that not everyone that disagrees with you is such an ass.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

You are telling him to start his own thread when you were the one that brought the subject up?

He was only responding to your post.

More tap dancing, huh Firm?

You bring up something to supposedly back your point then when you get called on it you try to claim it's not relevant to the discussion.

I brought it up as an illustrative example.  If you and RO wish to discuss it in detail, either start another thread, or get tazzy's permission to discuss it in this thread.  She's the OP, and I defer to her wishes on the subject of what is appropriately "on-topic".

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct
RO- you're not going to like my response on the depleted uranium sideline- although it may be instructive as to how Republican administrations deal with the treatment of large numbers of people who have been exposed to toxins. As I understand it, the valuable isotopes of uranium, which I think is primarily U-235 and U-234 are extracted from uranium ores leaving behind U-238 which isn't radioactive- hence the term, depleted uranium. It is however, quite dense. Once the 234 and 235 are out of the ore, the remaining 238 (and smaller volumes of 235 and 234) are less radioactive than naturally occurring uranium ore so we have to worry about their chemical toxicity, but less about ionizing radiation.

On the other hand- uranium chemistry is still poorly understood and the toxicity of uranium can vary dramatically based on oxidation state. I'm very familiar with metals that have this property- my thesis work was on hexavalent chromium which is a carcinogen, although chromium (III) is not- and may actually be an essential trace element. If the data lumped all depleted uranium into one basket and didn't look at the chemistry of individual exposures, you could draw some erroneous conclusions.

In terms of the troops being exposed to nasty stuff in Iraq...I can understand how scary depleted uranium can sound. But the Iraqis were burning wells, and I suspect that the gases, metals, etc. from those releases may have been a lot more problematic. All of this is very reminiscent of the issues of Agent Orange- a defoliant widely used in Viet Nam. While Agent Orange was reasonably safe for humans to handle, some of the manufacturers did a lousy job and allowed it to get contaminated with PCBs or some other similar nasty organic. So the problem became that some troops exposed to Agent Orange had no issues whatsoever, and others, exposed to the contaminated batches of Agent Orange, developed cancers, chloracne, nerve damage etc. The administration claimed that Agent Orange was safe and wouldn't cause those illnesses (true), but some batches weren't clean. I don't know if any vets ever collected on that one either....

I don't know enough about how the depleted uranium shells were handled to comment as to whether some shells might have had something nasty like osmium as a contaminant. The breakdown of radioactive materials produces just about everything in the periodic table- and osmium is both very expensive (great catalyst) and really nasty IIRC. It's also a breakdown product of uranium IIRC.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

I was led there because troops who were in DU areas "and their stateside wives" were not allowed to donate blood.  This was unwritten btw which intrigued me to look into it as to "why".