RE: 911 Responders

RE: 911 Responders (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Real0ne -> RE: 911 Responders (12/19/2010 4:46:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee 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". I have donated blood I have no idea how many times and there is no spot on the paperwork that tells what your spouse does. well I dont know all the details or if at some point they lifted it. It was a question asked of everyone at the blood center who wanted to donate blood. If they were in certain areas of iraq or Afghanistan and they would state the areas. It may be different now. I asked for paperwork and could not get my hands on any unfortunately. It was more of a curiosity than a quest to get damning info though I sort of wish I had done a fioa now. The claim was that it was an interoffice memo and that took me back to my surprize to the fda. The same fda that scared the epa about their relaxing raising the safe intake levels of mercury. So if you want paperwork cant get it for you because I never got any. I am just relaying my experience and effort to find out why, and those are the reasons.

Aylee -> RE: 911 Responders (12/19/2010 4:58:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne well I dont know all the details or if at some point they lifted it. It was a question asked of everyone at the blood center who wanted to donate blood. If they were in certain areas of iraq or Afghanistan and they would state the areas. It may be different now. I asked for paperwork and could not get my hands on any unfortunately. It was more of a curiosity than a quest to get damning info though I sort of wish I had done a fioa now. The claim was that it was an interoffice memo and that took me back to my surprize to the fda. The same fda that scared the epa about their relaxing raising the safe intake levels of mercury. So if you want paperwork cant get it for you because I never got any. I am just relaying my experience and effort to find out why, and those are the reasons. They do ask about military service and overseas travel. However it only refers to yourself and not to your spouse. http://www.redcrossblood.org/donating-blood/eligibility-requirements/eligibility-criteria-topic

samboct -> RE: 911 Responders (12/19/2010 8:08:28 PM)
RO OK- we're clearly doing some thread digression here, but let me try again more simply- Uranium has three different isotopes, 234, 235, 238. An isotope refers to the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. Some isotopes are stable and don't emit radiation- others are unstable- emit particles and decay, i.e. change the number of protons and neutrons- which become different elements then. Uranium 238 is stable- it doesn't emit anything and hence- is NOT radioactive. U-234 and U-235 are radioactive- which makes them attractive for fuel for nuclear reactors and bombs. The uranium used in the gulf war was NOT highly radioactive- it's actually less radioactive than commonly found uranium ores. That doesn't mean that uranium isn't toxic or mutagenic or teratogenic (, i.e. cause birth defects.) A compound doesn't have to be radioactive to do any of those things. So going around with a geiger counter isn't going to do much. Doing mass spec to find out how much uranium is around would be a good start- especially to find it what compound exactly is present. Note- I tend to disagree with Firm on the Gulf War issue. I suspect that some people were poisoned by uranium or other compounds from the burning wells- it's just hard to figure out who. If you look at the whole population, it's not going to show up- it'll get lost in the noise. But uranium is indeed toxic- even without being radioactive. Same way that the stuff in the air from 9/11 can be toxic- it's not radioactive- but it's still toxic. Sam

Real0ne -> RE: 911 Responders (12/19/2010 9:14:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct RO OK- we're clearly doing some thread digression here, but let me try again more simply- Uranium has three different isotopes, 234, 235, 238. An isotope refers to the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. Some isotopes are stable and don't emit radiation- others are unstable- emit particles and decay, i.e. change the number of protons and neutrons- which become different elements then. Uranium 238 is stable- it doesn't emit anything and hence- is NOT radioactive. U-234 and U-235 are radioactive- which makes them attractive for fuel for nuclear reactors and bombs. The uranium used in the gulf war was NOT highly radioactive- it's actually less radioactive than commonly found uranium ores. That doesn't mean that uranium isn't toxic or mutagenic or teratogenic (, i.e. cause birth defects.) A compound doesn't have to be radioactive to do any of those things. So going around with a geiger counter isn't going to do much. Doing mass spec to find out how much uranium is around would be a good start- especially to find it what compound exactly is present. Note- I tend to disagree with Firm on the Gulf War issue. I suspect that some people were poisoned by uranium or other compounds from the burning wells- it's just hard to figure out who. If you look at the whole population, it's not going to show up- it'll get lost in the noise. But uranium is indeed toxic- even without being radioactive. Same way that the stuff in the air from 9/11 can be toxic- it's not radioactive- but it's still toxic. Sam If I understand you correctly we are in agreement. Maybe my focus was too heavy on the radioactivity rather than the toxicity of the metal itself. Do we agree that metal, any metal that can be reduced in size such that it can lodge in the mitochondia in your cells is toxic and even metals that are mildly radioactive are even more hazardous as it kills everything in its path every time a gamma particle is released. So I am thinking that we agree just have different focuses?

samboct -> RE: 911 Responders (12/20/2010 8:24:25 AM)
Umm, no. First we need to distinguish between particles and soluble. Particles are solids. Nanoparticles can be a clump of say 100 metal atoms. Solutions of nanoparticles can appear clear because the particle is smaller than the wavelength of light. Other metals react with water such as sodium and readily form ions- generally losing an electron or two in the process to become soluble. Ions exist in solution as a single atom or molecule, with a shell of water molecules around it. Nanoparticles can become lodged. Ions travel in the bloodstream, and unless they react with a component of the body, get excreted. Soluble metals are dissolved in water. These solvated atoms form either cations (positive charge) or anions (anions). Cations are generally more toxic than anions because they interfere with DNA replication. Note that there are a number of soluble metals such as sodium or potassium which are critical to cellular function. Heavy metals- i.e. ones past the level of iron in the periodic table, are often toxic because they replace lighter ions such as zinc in enzymes and don't function well. Oxidation state, i.e. charge, is critical to transport of these heavy metals such as uranium and where they will wind up. Note that not all light metals are benign- beryllium can be pretty nasty. The mitochondria are the cells engines- they provide energy for cells and come with their own DNA. This DNA is not used in reproduction though. (don't think it is.) However, it's often easier to examine mitochondrial DNA than nuclear DNA so this can be a method to track if an organism has been exposed to something nasty- it may be hanging out in this DNA. There are many potential targets for either nanoparticles or ions once inside a cell- even including the cell membrane where they can damage transport don't get hung up on either the mitochondrion or DNA. In terms of radioactivity- not all radioactivity is created equal. Furthermore, we're all radioactive- and not from A-bomb tests either. The primary source is potassium, which is critical to cellular function. Potassium has a couple of isotopes, one of which is unstable- hence we're radioactive. Very high energy particles, such as cosmic rays from the sun, go right through you. Remember the old Star Trek's where they talk about "phase" and passing through solid matter because most atoms are empty space? Well, it's true- most atoms are empty space, and if the radioactive particle is small enough and fast enough- it zips right through and doesn't hit anything. Slower, less energetic particles that can actually collide with the nucleus of an atom are more dangerous. The measure of cross section- the likelihood that a particle will actually hit an atom is called a "barn"- like you couldn't hit the broadside of.... There- have you got a headache yet? But yes, you do need to separate out the chemical toxicity from a heavy metal, versus the damage done by ionizing radiation (turns things into ions that aren't supposed to be ions) radiation. Cheers, Sam

tazzygirl -> RE: 911 Responders (12/20/2010 4:01:21 PM)
quote: I hate to sound callous about this, but if they were off the clock and volunteering, then I'm afraid I'd say it was on them to take care of themselves (or some charity organization comprised of voluntary donations.) I don't want to diminish these peoples' heroism and sacrifice... we are fortunate indeed that so many people are willing to look beyond their own safety and reach out to others in a time of need. I have and will continue to do so myself, but I would never expect anyone else to compensate me if I get hurt. It's on my own dime and at my own risk. I'm personally responsible for me and the actions (including risking my health and my life) that I take. If someone knows you are a Dr, nurse or EMT and you dont stop at a scene of an accident, you can be sued... the success depends on which state you are in. I really take exception to expect those with the ability to save lives being told they are "off the clock" so its your dime. quote: We certainly don't want to discourage generosity of spirit within people during a time of need. But you just did with your previous statement. Just because a disaster happens doesnt let others "off the hook". Medical and safety personnel are trained to act first, ask questions later. Katrina was a natural disaster. Should the volunteers have statyed away because they didnt know what they were walking in on? On a lonely road, the only person to stop past an accident scene is a Physician, should he not stop because he "might" be injured? Thats a dangerous precendent you are setting. quote: All I can say is that it gives me a bad taste in my mouth when people abdicate responsibility for their own actions and expect the government (or someone else) to make things right for them. I do agree there are times when people need to have their feet held to the fire to make them live up to their obligations, but it seems all to often people who've suffered a loss are adamant that someone... anyone other than themselves must be held accountable and pay. Sometimes accidents are just accidents. Shit happens. You deal. And all i can say is that it leaves a foul taste in mine when people who cant, or wont, step out of their little boxes to recognize that their are good people in this world who helped for nothing more than the fact that they could help, and they are getting fucked... and told to "deal".

TreasureKY -> RE: 911 Responders (12/20/2010 5:24:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct You're bringing up a point which is largely irrelevant here- the point of if a volunteer is injured, who is responsible. But the reality is that during 9/11 first responders were asked by their employers to show up and help deal with the situation. Furthermore, what you're suggesting sets a horrible precedent. Should first responders not respond to a situation when they're not on the clock because they might get injured? I think first responders have a reasonable expectation that if they lay their lives on the line, that if they're injured, their injuries will be dealt with responsibly regardless of whether or not they've been assigned to the task. Otherwise you risk the equivalent of a bloody minded strike- I'm not getting paid, so I'm not going in there. Is that what you want? These people weren't down there because they were promised large sums of cash- they were there because they viewed it as their civic duty. If they hadn't been injured- they wouldn't be hitting people up for additional money. But they were injured, and its our civic duty to make sure that they are treated with dignity. Being turfed out on the street after being unable to work doesn't hack it in my book. Same problem as homeless vets- it's intolerable. Isn't it enough that people sacrificed their health to help others? Should they have to have sacrificed their finances as well? First, I don't think it is an irrelevant point, at all. As I stated in my first post, it wouldn't really apply toward the cases in question, but it would help to set precedent for the future. Second, if an employer asks an employee to show up to help, I suspect that labor laws would consider those individuals "on the clock" unless they've specifically agreed to not be compensated for their work. Even then, I think it likely that the employer would be assuming liability for injuries/illness unless there was also a specific agreement excluding those benefits from any volunteer worker... and I'm not sure they can actually do that. Sorry, but I've been out of the employment law loop for a few years now and I don't really have the time to research current precedence. Again, I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from volunteering help... but an informed decision would prevent a lot of problems. I'm not sure there'd be that many people who would refuse to volunteer... I know I wouldn't. As I've said before, those who are responsible should be held to their obligations. But people need to know and understand those obligations before a situation ever arises. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl If someone knows you are a Dr, nurse or EMT and you dont stop at a scene of an accident, you can be sued... the success depends on which state you are in. I really take exception to expect those with the ability to save lives being told they are "off the clock" so its your dime. What you are talking about is "duty to rescue". From some quick research, it is a rarity in the US for such a concept to be codified in law for the situation that happened on 9/11. A few states have enacted some type of duty to rescue law, and other have duty to rescue wording contained in their Good Samaritan laws... and it would appear that generally those laws are not applicable in cases where there is any danger to the rescuer. New York doesn't appear to be one of those few states, either. In fact, the following is an excerpt from a legal site discussing "duty to rescue" under New York's laws: quote: Duty to Rescue The general rule is that a person has no duty to rescue another person who is in peril. Even in an extreme situation, such as where an adult sees a child trapped on top of railroad tracks, courts generally hold that a person is under no duty to come to the aid of another. Courts, however, recognize several exceptions. These include the following: The Defendant Created the Peril. Where the defendant's negligence created the need for the plaintiff to be rescued, the defendant is generally under a duty to rescue the plaintiff. Undertaking to Act. If a defendant begins to rescue a person but then stops, in some instances the defendant may be under a duty to continue the rescue. Most courts require that the defendant act reasonably once the rescue has begun. If a reasonable person would have continued to rescue the victim, then the defendant may have been under a duty to continue the rescue. Special Relationship. A defendant may have the duty to rescue a person where the defendant has a special relationship with the victim, such as in an employer-employee or a school-student relationship. Further, here is a link to an article published in April of 2009 showing that the courts in New York have upheld the "no duty to rescue rule". There is an interesting abstract from the Texas Law Review (Vol. 84:653 2006) discussing the implications for enacting a duty to rescue: Rescue Without Law: An Empirical Perspective on the Duty to Rescue In this abstract, the author indicates: "Three states have enacted statutory duties to rescue: Vermont, Rhode Island, and Minnesota. Vermont and Rhode Island require individuals to perform non-risky rescues; Minnesota requires individuals to either perform the non-risky rescue or provide notice of the problem to police or rescue personnel. One other state, Wisconsin, has a statute that requires persons present at the scene of a crime to either report the incident to the police or to assist the crime victim. Several other states have imposed limited duties to report crimes, and every state imposes a duty to remain at the scene of a car accident at least long enough to render aid and exchange information, when it is safe to do so." If you feel that this information I've provided does not include medical professionals, I'll refer you to the following article published by the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, "The Pervasive Duty to Rescue" that acknowledges: "... Traditionally under American law, no general duty to rescue is imposed upon us. ..." Interestingly enough, the article goes on to discuss how the Federal Government is forcing through taxation that citizens come to the aid of others... the topic of a previous thread of mine. There are quite a few other articles and discussions online involving "duty to rescue", however I was unable to find any that identified doctors or nurses as being required to render assistance when no one else is require to. Of course, this doesn't mean that there isn't an ethical obligation... just not a legal one. quote: But you just did with your previous statement. Just because a disaster happens doesnt let others "off the hook". Medical and safety personnel are trained to act first, ask questions later. Katrina was a natural disaster. Should the volunteers have statyed away because they didnt know what they were walking in on? On a lonely road, the only person to stop past an accident scene is a Physician, should he not stop because he "might" be injured? Thats a dangerous precendent you are setting. As I've repeatedly said, I wouldn't want to discourage people from rendering assistance. However, if you'll refer to the abstract I linked above from the Texas Law Review, there is an interesting study showing the results of the three states who have enacted "duty to respond" versus the records from before the law was enacted, there has been no substantial difference in the number of cases of assistance rendered. I suspect that the same would hold true for cases where people were aware ahead of time that they may be placing themselves in personal peril by assisting... whether physical or financial. quote: And all i can say is that it leaves a foul taste in mine when people who cant, or wont, step out of their little boxes to recognize that their are good people in this world who helped for nothing more than the fact that they could help, and they are getting fucked... and told to "deal". I'm not aware of anyone here who hasn't acknowledged the good people who have put their lives on the line to help others. I don't believe the government officials who have balked at this legislation have said anything to the contrary, either. The question is, just who should be responsible for someone who has voluntarily placed their health, their life, and their livelihood on the line by rendering assistance in an dangerous situation. For me, with regard to those individuals for whom emergency services is their job, and were on the scene in their official capacity, they should have been taken care of long ago by their employers. For others who volunteered their professional services at the request of their employer, they should also have been covered by their employer long ago.

tazzygirl -> RE: 911 Responders (12/20/2010 5:46:00 PM)
quote: The question is, just who should be responsible for someone who has voluntarily placed their health, their life, and their livelihood on the line by rendering assistance in an dangerous situation. For me, with regard to those individuals for whom emergency services is their job, and were on the scene in their official capacity, they should have been taken care of long ago by their employers. For others who volunteered their professional services at the request of their employer, they should also have been covered by their employer long ago. You are assuming everyone was there at the request of their employers. You should spend some time researching the stories behind the responders. Out of curiosity, do you have Aspergers? I ask because of the lack of compassion. If everyone worried about themselves, there would be no volunteering on any level. Let me know how that works for you during the next "natural" disaster you live through. You can hide behind the "money" all you like. But telling people who came from all over the country they shouldnt have come is wrong, no matter how you sugar coat it. And to tell them... sure sucks to be you, you should have used due diligence... well... I thought better of you both, to be honest.

TreasureKY -> RE: 911 Responders (12/20/2010 6:12:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl You are assuming everyone was there at the request of their employers. You should spend some time researching the stories behind the responders. No. As I've already stated, if someone volunteers to put themselves in harms way, it doesn't seem right for them to come back and claim someone else is responsible if they get hurt. I was simply addressing the comments regarding people who were there for their jobs, or at the request of their employers. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Out of curiosity, do you have Aspergers? I ask because of the lack of compassion. Now I'm disappointed. I would never had expected you to lower yourself to that type of personal question. I see no legitimate reason you might do so other than to be denigrating. For the record, no. I suffer from no mental or physical disabilities or infirmaries. I am on no medication and see no physician of any type on a regular basis other than my gynecologist for my annual well-woman physical. As for your perceiving me to have a "lack of compassion", I'm not sure how to help you there. What is displayed in the posts I make here is only a fraction of who I am. Most of that is from a dispassionate/logical perspective. I save my passion and compassion for more personal interactions. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl If everyone worried about themselves, there would be no volunteering on any level. Let me know how that works for you during the next "natural" disaster you live through. I'm afraid that I disagree. As I've said, I've volunteered before and will do so again if needed... all without holding anyone else responsible for me, other than me. I don't think that I'm that special. I think it's sad that you have so little faith in people.

tazzygirl -> RE: 911 Responders (12/21/2010 12:39:09 AM)
quote: Now I'm disappointed. I would never had expected you to lower yourself to that type of personal question. I see no legitimate reason you might do so other than to be denigrating. I dont see it as lowering myself to any level. I asked because while you display a type of empathy, you also negate any sign of sympathy. Some people with that disorder, and others, lack the ability. I asked because i dont know. To assume would be wrong as well. quote: For the record, no. I suffer from no mental or physical disabilities or infirmaries. I am on no medication and see no physician of any type on a regular basis other than my gynecologist for my annual well-woman physical . I wasnt asking for a record. See above. quote: Most of that is from a dispassionate/logical perspective. Perhaps not being in the field may be the reason why. I can be both logical and passionate at the same time. Its almost a requirement. quote: I'm afraid that I disagree. As I've said, I've volunteered before and will do so again if needed... all without holding anyone else responsible for me, other than me. I don't think that I'm that special. I think it's sad that you have so little faith in people. Its not a lack of faith. Its a realization that people, if they suspect their actions will be deteremental, and they know no one will help them when they need help regardless of them stepping in and helping others when they were needed, will be a deciding factor.

graceadieu -> RE: 911 Responders (12/21/2010 9:52:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct 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.... IIRC, a bunch of Vietnam vets injured by Agent Orange sued Monsanto and settled out of court with them for some millions of dollars. But I don't think the Vietnamese kids born with horrific birth defects got a dime. :(

Real0ne -> RE: 911 Responders (12/21/2010 11:02:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct Umm, no. First we need to distinguish between particles and soluble. Particles are solids. Nanoparticles can be a clump of say 100 metal atoms. Solutions of nanoparticles can appear clear because the particle is smaller than the wavelength of light. yeh < 10^-23ish is gone which is what I was generally driving at for particle Other metals react with water such as sodium and readily form ions- generally losing an electron or two in the process to become soluble. Ions exist in solution as a single atom or molecule, with a shell of water molecules around it. Nanoparticles can become lodged. Ions travel in the bloodstream, and unless they react with a component of the body, get excreted. YEs but my point is that nonoparticles when ingested not only become lodged but often are small enough to enter into the cells and even into the mitochondria. Soluble metals are dissolved in water. These solvated atoms form either cations (positive charge) or anions (anions). Cations are generally more toxic than anions because they interfere with DNA replication. Note that there are a number of soluble metals such as sodium or potassium which are critical to cellular function. I didnt plan on going beyond the more general terms into quality issues because there are so many variables each with their own specific outcome and as a group difficult to compare. Heavy metals- i.e. ones past the level of iron in the periodic table, are often toxic because they replace lighter ions such as zinc in enzymes and don't function well. Oxidation state, i.e. charge, is critical to transport of these heavy metals such as uranium and where they will wind up. Note that not all light metals are benign- beryllium can be pretty nasty. yes they essentially create a chemical mask changing original function and characteristics forcing the over all body chemistry out of balance. The mitochondria are the cells engines- they provide energy for cells and come with their own DNA. This DNA is not used in reproduction though. (don't think it is.) However, it's often easier to examine mitochondrial DNA than nuclear DNA so this can be a method to track if an organism has been exposed to something nasty- it may be hanging out in this DNA. There are many potential targets for either nanoparticles or ions once inside a cell- even including the cell membrane where they can damage transport don't get hung up on either the mitochondrion or DNA. yes and the real concern is that it cannot be detected in urine samples except at very high levels. In terms of radioactivity- not all radioactivity is created equal. Furthermore, we're all radioactive- and not from A-bomb tests either. The primary source is potassium, which is critical to cellular function. Potassium has a couple of isotopes, one of which is unstable- hence we're radioactive. Yes that is they I made a point to state gamma. Very high energy particles, such as cosmic rays from the sun, go right through you. Remember the old Star Trek's where they talk about "phase" and passing through solid matter because most atoms are empty space? Well, it's true- most atoms are empty space, and if the radioactive particle is small enough and fast enough- it zips right through and doesn't hit anything. Slower, less energetic particles that can actually collide with the nucleus of an atom are more dangerous. The measure of cross section- the likelihood that a particle will actually hit an atom is called a "barn"- like you couldn't hit the broadside of.... I will have to ponder that as a side note because I am not so sure speed is the controlling factor as compared to path. I am not sure passing through one universe of "stuff" at a given speed assures it wont collide with the next universe of "stuff" if you know what I mean. There- have you got a headache yet? But yes, you do need to separate out the chemical toxicity from a heavy metal, versus the damage done by ionizing radiation (turns things into ions that aren't supposed to be ions) radiation. Cheers, Sam No I am not trying to downplay your toxic version of the issue in any way. On a scale of one to ten its right up there. The main thrust of my point was intended to be in addition to yours to soapbox the hidden radioactive danger from these nanoparticles that can stay in the body for the life of the cell and not go out for 1/2 of a lifetime as they lodge from one cell to the next causing cell mutations which ultimately result in cancer long term. For the issues you bring up you might want to investigate ellegic and alpha lipoic acid which I have no certified proof to offer but has been claimed as long as I can remember by naturalists to help with metal poisoning and also look into active hexose correlate compound (AHCC) that has been proven to help prevent cancer.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: 911 Responders (12/22/2010 12:04:36 PM)
FR As I said...passed once the extension of tax rates got taken care of.

rulemylife -> RE: 911 Responders (12/22/2010 12:28:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy As I said...passed once the extension of tax rates got taken care of. That's not anything to be proud of Willbeurr. The legislation should have passed by unanimous consent based on the legislation alone. It should not have been used as a partisan game by the Republicans.

FirmhandKY -> RE: 911 Responders (12/22/2010 3:05:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy As I said...passed once the extension of tax rates got taken care of. That's not anything to be proud of Willbeurr. The legislation should have passed by unanimous consent based on the legislation alone. It should not have been used as a partisan game by the Republicans. Did you forget about the partisan games of the Democrats? Firm

luckydawg -> RE: 911 Responders (12/22/2010 6:20:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy As I said...passed once the extension of tax rates got taken care of. That's not anything to be proud of Willbeurr. The legislation should have passed by unanimous consent based on the legislation alone. It should not have been used as a partisan game by the Republicans. Which is of course why (according to your links and citations) the democrats never offered it as a stand alone bill, except when they knew it would not be voted on. Perhaps people are dumb enought to fall for your sides political games with 911 workers. THose dumb people are called Democrats. Also according to info you posted, this bill is about long term funding for the program passed by the Republicans years ago, not the creation of a program to elp. No one got denied help because of the Games Your side has played with the bill.

lickenforyou -> RE: 911 Responders (12/22/2010 8:18:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne The voices of those who understand fall on deaf ears. Here it is in lay mans terms! Damn, no wonder I can't get to the top. I thought it was because I wasn't smart enough, or disciplined enough, or I just didn't work hard enough. But no, it's other people keeping me from achieving. And, everybody that has succeeded is in on it!!!

willbeurdaddy -> RE: 911 Responders (12/22/2010 9:23:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy As I said...passed once the extension of tax rates got taken care of. That's not anything to be proud of Willbeurr. The legislation should have passed by unanimous consent based on the legislation alone. It should not have been used as a partisan game by the Republicans. Which is of course why (according to your links and citations) the democrats never offered it as a stand alone bill, except when they knew it would not be voted on. Perhaps people are dumb enought to fall for your sides political games with 911 workers. THose dumb people are called Democrats. Also according to info you posted, this bill is about long term funding for the program passed by the Republicans years ago, not the creation of a program to elp. No one got denied help because of the Games Your side has played with the bill. And Coburn got considerable concessions that will save at least 2 billion and added controls that will save even more.

rulemylife -> RE: 911 Responders (12/22/2010 11:44:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy As I said...passed once the extension of tax rates got taken care of. That's not anything to be proud of Willbeurr. The legislation should have passed by unanimous consent based on the legislation alone. It should not have been used as a partisan game by the Republicans. Did you forget about the partisan games of the Democrats? Firm They all play partisan games, but you are talking about people's health and lives being balanced against continuing a tax break. Somehow, I don't think that balances out too well.

rulemylife -> RE: 911 Responders (12/22/2010 11:55:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg Which is of course why (according to your links and citations) the democrats never offered it as a stand alone bill, except when they knew it would not be voted on. Perhaps people are dumb enought to fall for your sides political games with 911 workers. THose dumb people are called Democrats. Also according to info you posted, this bill is about long term funding for the program passed by the Republicans years ago, not the creation of a program to elp. No one got denied help because of the Games Your side has played with the bill. Care to point out to me where any of my links stated this?

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625