»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
"Why I Was Angry"
| The Alley |
|
"Why I Was Angry" |
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
“The specifics of the debate last week should be an example of an issue beyond partisan dispute. The bill in question was created to help the thousands of citizens who went to ground zero after the Sept. 11 attacks. These are Americans who wanted to help, and who scientific studies now show are falling ill and dying in troubling numbers.” “It was frustrating to hear Republicans say these people didn’t deserve more help because, as one put it, “people get killed all the time.” Others called it another big entitlement program. Some said it was a giveaway to New York, or complained that the bill would have been paid for by closing a tax loophole. We responded to each of these arguments over the summer in the hours of hearings and markups of the bill. And the answers are pretty simple.” “The truth is that this is a limited program, with a cap, because it is restricted to 9/11 responders and others directly affected by the toxic substances. As we all remember, the victims of ground zero dust came from all over the nation — they weren’t just New Yorkers” “Playing politics on important issues is never right. But on health care for 9/11 responders, it’s an outrage.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/opinion/04weiner.html?_r=2&hp [Edit - fixed another broken title - Ron] [This message has been edited by Ron (08-07-2010 10:50 PM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2010 JenniferMaxwell - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
If they want good stuff passed without opposition they shouldn't attach garbage in the same bill along with the good stuff. Their success rate would be better, I'm sure. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Here's a summary of the Bill. Which part of it is the "garbage"? 2/4/2009--Introduced.James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2009 - Amends the Public Health Service Act to establish within the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health the World Trade Center Health Program (WTC program) to provide: (1) medical monitoring and treatment benefits to eligible emergency responders and recovery and cleanup workers who responded to the World Trade Center terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001; and (2) initial health evaluation, monitoring, and treatment benefits to residents and other building occupants and area workers who were directly impacted and adversely affected by such attacks. Requires the WTC program administrator to: (1) implement a quality assurance program; (2) establish the WTC Health Program Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee; (3) establish the WTC Responders Steering Committee and the WTC Community Program Steering Committee; (4) provide for education and outreach on services under the WTC program; (5) provide for the uniform collection of data related to WTC-related health conditions; (6) conduct research on physical and mental health conditions that may be related to the September 11 terrorist attacks; and (7) extend and expand arrangements with the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to provide for the World Trade Center Health Registry. Authorizes the administrator to make grants to the Department to address mental health needs relating to the terrorist attacks.Amends the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act to: (1) make individuals eligible for compensation under the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 for harm as a result of debris removal; and (2) extend the deadline for making a claim for compensation |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Items that were attached other than those relating to the WTC issues, Jen. I don't recall right now what they were, but those other items were the reason why some were opposed to the bill. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
If you should find them, I'd really appreciate a link when you have the time. Thanks! |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I heard it on the news, Jen, don't have a link and don't plan on googling it to try to find one. If your are interested I guess you could research it. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I heard somewhere that they voted against it because it was really a communist plot to funnel money into a terrorist group of left wing lesbian Muslims based in Kenya who had clear links with Al Qaeda and pro-abortion extremists. Here’s a link – check it out yourself. /pip/Forum6/HTML/002050.html#6 |
||
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Perhaps it was voted down because it had no provisions for the responders to the Oklahoma City bombing which were required to work through the hazardous materials and unhealthy air conditions at that particular crime scene. I realize that Timothy McVie and Terry Nichols only killed 168 people; however, they did damage 324 buildings and caused a minimum $652 million in damages. There were also in excess of 12,000 people involved in relief and rescue efforts in the days following. It was also the largest federally investigated crime until 9/11 with 28,000 interviews, 3.5 short tons of evidence, and nearly 1,000,000,000 pieces of information collected. There were absolutely NO federal funds allocated to assist the people who were affected by this act of terrorist violence. Messages of sympathy were received from England, the PLO, Canada, Australia, Russia, the UN, the European Union, and India. IRAN, of all possible countries, condemned the attack, The Kuwaiti Parliament condemned it. France offered a special rescue unit to assist, Israel assisted a special anti-terrorist unit to assist. In the aftermath, several pieces of legislation were passed to assist in preventing this from happening again, as well as to increase the penalties for anyone doing so. Or, have we forgotten? Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Pretty silly reason to vote it down, don't you think? Talk about the perfect being the enemy of the good! Would you vote it down for a reason like that? I wouldn't. If such a bill is desired, why not propose one, either as an addition to the bill that was defeated, or as a separate bill? I'd support it. I suspect that it's another program like cap and trade, one the Republicans ran on and publicly supported with statements from both the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates in 2008, and one which the same two people have spoken against in scathing terms in the months since. Nothing's too good for our first responders on 9/12 according to the Republicans in power, while the same Republican legislators are voting against the same heroic first responders now, even if its a program that was originally a Republican idea. I'm reminded of a joke I first heard about the 1956 Israeli/ Egyptian war. An Israeli tank and an Egyptian tank accidentally collide during a tank battle in the Sinai desert. The Egyptians immediately pile out of their T-34s with their hands in the air, yelling "I surrender! I surrender!" Meanwhile the Israelis are piling out of their tanks, hands grasping the backs of their necks, shouting "Whiplash! Whiplash!" Watching the Republican back and forth on many of their positions these days reminds me of the Israelis in that joke. "Whiplash! Whiplash!" That's the feeling I get watching the contradictory positions being taken. I only wish I though the joke was funnier these days. |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Bob- I absolutely agree that the 9/11 responders deserve any assistance they can get... and I very seriously doubt that is why they were denied... I would actually hope not... I was simply making a point about how people are selective about the people they care about, and tend to forget anything that isn't this week's news. Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Denise is right. Before jumping to conclusions, it would be best to read the entire bill. There is nothing new about sneaking in things known to raise public ire onto a bill that people would agree with. It's an old tactic. If someone wants to criticize, they should be thorough enough to investigate the bill in it's entirety and present it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Here's a list of all related bills. That's as much homework as I'm going to do for someone else. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-847&tab=related 12 republicans voted for it and 4 democrats voted against it. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-491 Here's an interesting sidenote: The bill has no cost estimate yet. A similar bill introduced in the House of Representatives in February would cost $12 billion, said the latest bill’s main sponsor, Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York. The House bill, which also bears Detective Zadroga’s name, is currently in committee. Meanwhile, questions linger as to whether he was a Sept. 11 victim. Detective Zadroga, 34, worked on the rescue and recovery efforts at ground zero for about three weeks after the Sept. 11 attack. Later, his family said, he began experiencing flulike symptoms and difficulty breathing — common symptoms in first responders that doctors called the “World Trade Center cough.” He died in January 2006 at his parents’ home in Ocean County, N.J. In April 2006, a report on an autopsy by the Ocean County medical examiner’s office concluded that Detective Zadroga’s death was a direct result of his rescue activities at the trade center site. As a result, for 18 months he was widely cited as the first to die from inhaling dust and particles at ground zero. But that judgment was called into question in October 2007, when the New York medical examiner concluded that Detective Zadroga’s death was not caused by toxic trade center dust at all. Instead, the medical examiner, Dr. Charles S. Hirsch, said it was a result of injecting ground-up prescription drugs. At the time, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg cited the finding as an example of unpopular science and said Detective Zadroga was “not a hero” — remarks he later retracted, with an apology to the family. The mayor and the police commissioner added Detective Zadroga’s name to the Wall of Heroes at 1 Police Plaza last year. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/nyregion/25zadroga.html |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I am truly shocked by some of the responses in this thread. “If someone wants to criticize, they should be thorough enough to investigate the bill in it's entirety and present it.” - Balladeer Someone did criticize, claimed there was “garbage” attached to the bill, but when asked what that garbage was, didn’t have a clue. Another poster speculated on why 155 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted against the bill and then when challenged, backtracked, stating he seriously doubted his speculation was true. And this morning another poster quotes from a article more than a year old that (a) trashes a first responder and (b) would lead a casual reader to believe there was no cost estimate for the bill. http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/worke r-safety/111375-health-bill-for-911-first-responders-gets-floor-vote-despite-cost-concerns http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/nyregion/26autopsy.html?ref=charles_s_hirsch[/URL] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I read the bill Mike, I couldn’t find anything untoward in it. It didn’t pass because the Republicans didn’t want to give the Dems bragging rights to claim that they’d passed a piece of popular legislation. So they announced that they were going to propose an amendment that the cost came out of the allocation for Health Care instead of a from a levy on foreign companies doing business in the US, knowing that the Dems couldn’t vote for that and the Republicans could then claim that the Dems were blocking the legislation. They said they ‘might’ vote for it if the amendment was included, that’s politician speak for “If the other side goes for it we’ll probably vote against it”. The Dems, realising that it was an attempt to undermine the health care bill sidestepped it by calling for a vote without amendments – there’s a cost, it requires a two thirds majority, but it forced a straight up or down vote. The Republicans voted against it claiming that it was the Democrats fault for denying any amendments. I think Weiner was right – it’s a shame. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-efD6wuhHpQ&feature=fvst |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704271804575405680334859208.html It seems how it would be paid for was the main point of contention. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Yes – sort of. On the face of it the Republicans wanted it to be paid for using money that was allocated for the health care bill to throw a spanner in that legislation and Democrats wanted it to be paid for by foreign companies doing business in the US. That’s not the whole story though. The Republicans knew that the Dems wouldn’t go for the alternate method of payment, they wanted to force the Dems to vote against it and be the dirty rotten scoundrels in the eyes of the electorate. The Dems knew that the Republicans wouldn’t vote for it and give them bragging rights without an amendment on how it would be paid for. The Dems are happy, they get to call the Republicans the dirty rotten scoundrels, the Republicans are slightly less happy but at least they can blame the Dems for blocking amendments. The 9/11 responders? Who cares, they’re unimportant – it’s party politics that counts - nobody gives a flying frog for the peons who might be suffering – like Mike said it’s questionable to some people whether they even deserve compensation. Let them eat cake. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
like Mike said it’s questionable to some people whether they even deserve compensation. Mike said that where? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Here Mike: quote: And here: quote: Some people, namely Hirsch and Bloomberg, didn’t think Zadroga deserved any compensation. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Grinch did not say that a person has a choice in what references he or she uses and what these references say. I don't know if he wished to make that point explicit. But by chosing references that set forward these points of view without offering caveats or coming down more clearly on the critical side of the issue, a writer gives the impression that he does not disagree with the views expressed and is being studiously neutral in an issue which is, at a minimum, a red herring issue. While one person may or may not have died from a specific cause which does not have one's political party's backing, there is little if any doubt that other have, and that we, as a nation, are in their debt. Seeking means of avoiding responsibility for that debt is neither ethical nor honorable for us as a nation. Republicans might consider getting out front on the issue and pushing for a more aggressive nill to steal the political momentum, if they're concerned. They could make the Democrats look silly. They simply aren't thinking on this one, or their thinking is very bad indeed. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Actually Bob I didn’t. If Mike wants to argue that he didn’t actually say it, that he was quoting someone else, that’s fine by me. I wasn’t trying to infer that Mike thought they didn’t deserve compensation or that he agreed with the quote he posted, in fact if I were to hazard a guess I think he’d be in favour of compensation. I was simply agreeing with the point he raised – that ‘some’ people believed that it was questionable whether the responders deserved compensation. You see I don’t think that people voted against the legislation because of a disagreement regarding how it was going to be paid for – that’s a really weak excuse. Once you move away from that argument a couple of obvious alternatives present themselves, they could have voted against it as a political move for instance or they could simply believe that the responders don’t deserve the compensation. As Mike said (pointed out, highlighted, communicated, referred to) there are folk who think that way. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Not many, Grinch, I would venture to say. More than likely, I'd say it was the source for funding of the bill which caused the dissent. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Really Denise. If they suggested funding it by increasing your income tax by half a percent would you vote against it? Would you vote against it if they suggested putting a tax of half a percent on beer and cigarettes, or air travel or gasoline? Would you weigh up the cost and the method of meeting that cost and vote no knowing that your vote would deny the responders the benefits that the legislation offers? I sure wouldn’t. I might say that I thought that there were better ways to pay for it but I’d vote yes every day of the week because I believe they deserve it. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Let them fund it with the 461 Billion Dollars of Stimulus money that hasn't been spent yet. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
What 461 Billion Dollars of Stimulus money Denise? You make it sound like the unspent stimulus money actually exists, it doesn’t and it won’t until they need to spend it at which point they’ll borrow the money against government bonds. Do you mean that they should borrow the money to pay for the responder bill? I think there are better ways of meeting the cost but heck, if adding more national debt gets you to vote yes, fill your boots.  |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Do teabaggers hate the 9/11 first responders? "Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the GOP is lining up against the Firefighters and Police Officers who rushed into the Asbestos inferno of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. WHY? Because it would full paid for by unfairly closing a "tax loophole on foreign companies with U.S. subsidiaries." NO! THE HORROR. WE MUST PROTECT THE FOREIGN CORPORATIONS!! Anyone want to know who the largest foreign corporations in the USA are?? Yes, everyone's favorite, BP leads the pack. SURPRISE!! Next is Royal Dutch Shell. Toyota, Honda, Nissan and banking giant ING round out the top 5. The profits of these companies are MORE IMPORTANT to today's GOP than the long term health maintenance of the men and women who put their lives on the line and those who died on September 11, 2001." http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/k/i/kingdzbws/2 010/07/taking-a-stand-against-lazy-91.php?ref=mp [This message has been edited by JenniferMaxwell (08-07-2010 12:44 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thank you, Jennifer, for destroying whatever creditability you might have had. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Is that a personal attack? Reads like one to me. Ron around or are you monitoring the forum? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Nope, not a personal attack at all, simply an observation of how the comments you make and reprint slandering an entire political party reflect on the creditability of what you say. When Ron or anyone points out something you decide to post as being garbage, it's the same thing. It doesn't refer to YOU as garbage, simply what you decide to display. Same here... |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Ron attacked the post, you attacked the poster. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Exactly what did the woman do that destroyed her creditability? Offering a list of names that might include some of those folks taxed seems to me to offer you a chance to show where she is incorrect. That would be addressing the facts of the post, by addressing the correctness or incorrectness of her assertions. That would be worthwhile in terms of the rules of the game, as I understand them. If I misunderstand them, please correct me. Suggesting that she personally has been totally discredited is a comment on her, directly, without commenting on her position or her point. This, as I understand it, is a violation of the rules of the game, because it is a comment directly on her without even mentioning the point she is trying to deal with. Do I understand the rules correctly, here, or not? [This message has been edited by Bob K (08-07-2010 12:00 AM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I believe a more telling example might be that of Halliburton. Halliburton began business as an American Company and paid taxes as an American Company. During the Bush Administration, however, it discovered that this was not advantageous to it as a company. It opened offices in Dubai and Incorporated there. It is now a company that registers itself not as an American Company, though it does business here, and gets many U.S. government contracts here that should go only to American Companies — at least in my opinion — but it manages to get around American tax laws by doing so. It is a large Republican contributor, though I'm sure there must be companies that have similar arrangements with the Democrats. (Maybe not, I really don't know.) By closing some of the tax loopholes, it may be possible for the U.S. government to collect some of the taxes that Halliburton may be avoiding. Or companies that do the same sort of thing in relationship with the Democrats, for all I know. The American public is getting ripped off by these tax loopholes to begin with, no matter who's political ally the company may prove to be, and the loopholes should be closed to help prevent undo tax burdens on the public. Do you believe that Halliburton is going to stop doing business in the United States if they're forced to pay taxes here? I don't. They're part of a service industry, and they bid where there are services to be provided and a profit to be made. They should bid on a level playing field with American companies that are patriotic enough not to try top flee overseas and who are willing to pay the taxes that the Governments asks Businesses here to pay. Should you wish to find other examples than Halliburton, the examples that Jennifer raised are not bad ones. BP does business here in the United States and should pay the appropriate taxes here. They are getting a lot of money from the US government in terms of rebates that we might also not be paying them. In fact, why should we pay them money to sell us gasoline at all? What advantage to we get from this odd arrangement? Bringing up the issue seems valid enough to me. Bringing the issue up, however, seems to be secondary to the issue at hand. The bill is to take care of first responders who have fallen ill as a result of being first responders. The Republicans, by and large, have scuttled the bill. We are talking about the bill, but no Republican in the meantime has offered another version of the bill with some version of the funding corrected into a sort of happy compromise. As far as I can tell, no Republican compromise has been offered at all. I would love to hear the details of one, though, that any of my Republican friends are aware of. Especially one that keeps all the treatment provisions for the first Responders in place and simply offers a mutually acceptable funding option. Until that time, I am somewhat skeptical here of anything other than an attempt to block the passage of any such bill at all, and not because such a bill isn't needed. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I tend to agree with Grinch's point- "It didn’t pass because the Republicans didn’t want to give the Dems bragging rights to claim that they’d passed a piece of popular legislation." The party of NO has sunk so low - refusing to help American heros and the victims of 9/11. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
It's simple enough, Bob, although I'm not sure why I am supposed to respond to YOU over a comment made to Jennifer, but that seems to be the way it is lately.. Why do teabaggers hate the 9/11 first responders? "Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the GOP is lining up against the Firefighters and Police Officers who rushed into the Asbestos inferno of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The profits of these companies are MORE IMPORTANT to today's GOP than the long term health maintenance of the men and women who put their lives on the line and those who died on September 11, 2001." Now, obviously, this is a garbage article, by anyone's standards. I doubt if even you, Bob, would concur with these statements. They are basically a rant and rave for shock value and little else. Yet, they were copied, pasted and posted to...what? Prove some kind of point? In my view, anyone who happened to wander into the Alley and saw these comments being used would not believe the posts of such a person who would use them to be credible. If I were to quote some right-wing hothead blog (and, yes, they are there, too) calling Democrats slimeball, disingenuous, uncaring, unfeeling people who hate anyone that stands in their way, I'm sure anyone reading it would feel the same way, that my using such a ridiculous rant would make my comments less than credible, also. To resort to using such things is not favorable to the poster. You, Bob, asked to please not have the word Democrat used in places where democratic would fit because you found it personally offensive and yet you can't understand how someone calling Republicans a group who could care less about 9/11 responders as being a fine thing to do and not to be found offensive at all? Well, that's up to you, I suppose. |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
quote: This, Jennifer, is where credibility runs mighty thin on your argument. This would be akin to me posting, "Why do members of the Baptist faith hate America?" There is a particular very small group of them that goes around making the comments that G-d hates America; however, I know for an absolute fact that there are members of the Baptist faith who are serving in the miitary, and who- through other means- support their country each and every day. Of course, were I to write such balderdash, you would- I am guessing- be at the head of the line calling for my resignation from life... and yet, you feel the need, the right, and the freedom to print such as you have. You absolutely do have that right. We also have the right to feel that, because of it, you have completely lost this particular debate, and a large slice of any credibility your arguments might have had. Your argument is lost when you blatantly insult over a million people with a blanket accusation. I can personally name you four people who were crawling around the rubble of the Towers... one was on Mayor Guilliani's staff, one was (and is) a NYC police officer who was there within 20 minutes after the first tower got him, the other two were volunteer fire fighter/rescuers from the local area. I am not going to out which ones; however, 2 of the aforementioned people are members of the 9/12 Organizations... and I would venture to say they are not alone. To say that myself, or ANYONE involved in protesting the current administration hates the rescuers is no different than saying those that protested the last one hates them... pure garbage. In the case of the people vs. your facts... you come out on the losing end. Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
“Creditability” Review - Denise stated the Dems attached “garbage”to the bill but couldn’t back up that statement. - Ringo posted a fantasy as possible justification for Republicans voting against it. - Balladeer posted an article that trashed a first responder and made misstatements about the bill. Hmmm, pot/kettle, stones/glass houses? [This message has been edited by JenniferMaxwell (08-07-2010 10:30 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Sorry, Grinch...I had not seen your reply until now. I see nowhere in that article where anyone suggested that the detective did not deserve compensation. The medical examiner questioned whether or not his death was caused by his actions on 9/ll. Whether or not he was a hero worthy or not of having a bill names after him was in question. Citing that he had medical issues other than 9/11 is not a slur on the man...simply an examiner's findings. Nowhere that I can see does it state he should not have deserved the same compensation of any of the other responders. If you did, please point it out. Btw, Jennifer, simply because a medical exam uncovers those findings, that is not "trashing" a man by any standards. I would think you would know the difference. "Why do teabaggers hate 9/11 responders?" Now THAT'S trashing... |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Thank you for showing me the error of my ways, I have edited my offending post. I, a non-teabagger, took the time to do a little research re Zadroga, his illness, the autopsy reports, etc., and came to the conclusion that, IMO, Hirsch was wrong and your post was trashing a first responder without even minimally investigating all the facts. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, A pathologist had determined that the detective had died due to inhaling material while responding to the 9/11 incident, as such his family were due compensation. Some people however didn't believe he was a hero, that he didn't deserve compensation, so a second autopsy was performed and Bloomberg announced that the findings were clear - the detective wasn't a hero, no compensation would be paid. It took a third autopsy to decide the question, it found that the first autopsy was correct and his family finally got compensation. The second autopsy was only necessary Mike because some people didn't believe he deserved compensation. It's a no-brainer. He responded to 9/11, he inhaled material, he died, an autopsy confirmed that 9/11 played a factor in his demise - just pay the man's family - don't start huffing and puffing about the cost. 9/11 responders are getting ill and dying, there's a bill to fund research and assistance - vote for the damn bill - don't start huffing and puffing about the cost. Trash them? The people who demanded a second autopsy should be publicly flogged. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Thank you, Mike. Your comments about the post itself rather than about Jennifer were exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"If I were to quote some right-wing hothead blog (and, yes, they are there, too) calling Democrats slimeball, disingenuous, uncaring, unfeeling people who hate anyone that stands in their way, I'm sure anyone reading it would feel the same way, that my using such a ridiculous rant would make my comments less than credible, also." - Balladeer Memory Refresher- Death Panels |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Again, Jennifer, it's all a matter of perspective. I'm glad you didn't see my comments as a personal attack because that's certainly not what I intended. But you could have. Some, I'm sure, would have, if only because it's pretty normal to get defensive. Perspective. Similarly, it's not hard to see Balladeer's quip as a personal attack. However, even though the grammatical subject of his remark is you, it's clear that the object was your post. It's the difference between contending you lost credibility because of the post and saying your post is irrelevant because you have no credibility. In spite of that, I probably would have edited Mike's comment had I read it before you responded to it. It was poorly phrased and, without any support offered, added absolutely nothing to the conversation. I was at a conference from Wednesday to Saturday, however, and could spend only a few minutes a day in the forums. By the time I got here, the comment had become a conversation. Those are typically a little more difficult to edit. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"By the time I got here, the comment had become a conversation. Those are typically a little more difficult to edit." - Ron Not a problem, ok with me to let it be if editing it now is a bother. There's one of those "talking about other people" posts that troubles me far more. You can find it in the VM forum. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
http://cagle.com/working/100802/margulies.jpg |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
