Pitiful Democratic Leadership


PDA






mp95bravo
February 15, 2004, 10:57 AM
From a friend at the Capitol.....

The Congresswoman/Senator/whatever she is/ got a letter in California in her office. She suspected it to have Anthrax. She went to the airport (with the letter in her purse), got on a plane, traveled cross country to D.C., went to her office in the Capitol, then reported it to the Capitol Police. After Capitol Police told her and her staffers to stay in the office (due to suspected contamination), they went out a back entrance and attended a press conference of some sort.

Had this been a real incident, she could have been responsible for a whole lotta sick people on both coasts. What the heck was she thinking?

I'm glad I'm a republican.

If you enjoyed reading about "Pitiful Democratic Leadership" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MicroBalrog
February 15, 2004, 11:00 AM
She was thinking anthrax is not contagious - which it isn't. You only get it by spore.

What was that about Republicans?:neener:

mp95bravo
February 15, 2004, 11:08 AM
I'm not a chemist or biologist, but could it have contained spores?

Could it have leaked out and got people sick?

Are you defending her?

The answer seems to be yes to all.

Democrats don't think about security issues. They only think about how many people on welfare can they muster to vote....

MicroBalrog
February 15, 2004, 11:16 AM
Could it have leaked out and got people sick?


IIRC when they sent it in letter forms (and they did) the dried spores were powder formed. In no case where the envelope was truly sealed did a mail worker get sick, unless the envelope was not sealed. BTW, would you be brave enough to carry anthrax spores on you? Remember, if SHTF, she would die first.

Are you defending her?

The truth doesn't matter when you need to take down a democrat, does it?:D

Speaking of truth, IS THIS STORY EVEN TRUE.

They only think about how many people on welfare can they muster to vote....

The poor do not matter, right?

Bill Hook
February 15, 2004, 12:26 PM
The poor do not matter, right?


Not as much as those who actually produce for the economy.

If we lived in a tribal subsistence society, who would be more valuable - those who produce the food or those who only eat it?

Why should it be different now?

mp95bravo
February 15, 2004, 02:06 PM
With my 3 posts, I don't really matter either...

You speak like a true democrat. I applaud your honesty.

To tell you the truth, I got this story first hand from someone who was there. Could it have been made up? That possibility does remotely exist, I'll give you that. With his 22 years on the job, he had no reason to make this story up, but then again, after Clinton, you were taught to believe nothing you hear and half of what you see.

The Bible teaches us something about the poor. Most on welfare are poor by choice. It's this segment that you Dems appeal to. Thank God you'll never get them to the polls. The eat up your party's B.S. and really get nothing in return.

Just curious.........What's your stance on same-sex marriage? You obviously have good in you with RKBA. But, how far to the right are you???

inventory0297
February 15, 2004, 02:34 PM
quote:
The poor do not matter, right?



Not as much as those who actually produce for the economy.

If we lived in a tribal subsistence society, who would be more valuable - those who produce the food or those who only eat it?

Why should it be different now?

Exactly.

People with <genuine> disabilities and temporary unemployment I can understand in terms of welfare, but able bodied people unwilling to work? Cut them off. The first time they don't show up for an arranged interview, even for a dishwashing job, they're out on their a** to my way of thinking.

No one else is responsible for you. I'm a young guy (23) and have had a job since I was 15, non stop. You're going to tell me that "the poor" couldn't find something to do? Hmm, somehow there are millions of illegal immigrants finding jobs. Are "the poor" too good for these occupations? Rather sit around all day smoking crack? I take exception to that. :cuss:

Why should we pay for people who're to lazy to develop or utilize skills?

I for one do not feel sorry for people who cannot produce for themselves. This type of socialistic handholding merely institutionalizes laziness and encourages more encroachments into individual freedom.

ThreadKiller
February 15, 2004, 06:04 PM
Well said, Inventory!!

Tim

WR Olsen
February 15, 2004, 07:25 PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In no case where the envelope was truly sealed did a mail worker get sick,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anthrax comes in many forms, when it is combined with a carrier agent the resulting powder can be fairly large, but at the same time it doesn't float in the air when released.

But if the anthrax has been "weaponized" the carrier agent containing the anthrax spores are so small it can pass through the envelope. For example if the size of the spores are increased to the size of an orange the openings in the envelope would be the size of a window. Anthax this small can float in the air for long periods of time. Thats why buildings are closed to up to a year or more when "weaponized" anthrax has been released.

That being said I would be more concerned with someone releasing smallpox into the environment. No that is a scary potential since statistics from prior smallpox incidents are that every striken individual will infect between 10 and 27 other people. Anthrax on the other hand requires individual direct exposure

Bill Hook
February 15, 2004, 07:25 PM
You speak like a true democrat. I applaud your honesty.


Be thankful he's an 18/19 year old Israeli with a fixation on America's Socialist Party, rather than a US Citizen. He knows only what he reads and sees on TV, which is very much in line with being a "democrat."

mp95bravo
February 15, 2004, 08:20 PM
When I was in Germany, the German Gov't decided to try something new. Instead of giving the Turks on welfare money, they wanted to give them food coupons. They Turks rioted. Now, you may ask why there are so many Turks in Germany? For one, it was very attractive for them. The Germans didn't like digging ditches, so they trucked in help. And, after no hard work was left, they forbade them from taking good jobs away from the German workers. In a way, like us, they created their own problems. They have a segment of society that likes welfare, and so do we. Now that it is a cancer, it is too terminal to cut out. I like the above post's answer.

Also, this segment keeps breeding. I'm in the service, and we have many women getting pregnant. Fathers are unknown, and they are not able to work. They have an option to get out, and some take it. Others ride the system until they get kicked out. You would be surprised how many single moms are in the service and need special care and attention which detracts from the Mission.

Lastly, their are no "illegal immigrants" in the USA anymore. Their new designation is "undocumented worker."

7.62FullMetalJacket
February 15, 2004, 10:11 PM
If this is true, then the good congress critter has possibly exposed many people to anthrax from California to Washington. I am sure that is criminal. AT a minimum, evidence tampering, disturbing a crime scene, etc.

To what end does this congress critter (D) potentially expose all of these people? To rush the evidence to the eminently competent Chief Ramsey and to hold a "oh, woe is me" press conference.

:barf: :barf: :barf:

mp95bravo
February 16, 2004, 09:58 AM
FMJ,

This is the sad part. She didn't think she was doing anything wrong, and the press conference had absolutely nothing to do with it. She didn't even mention it. This is a case of stupidity and complete ignorance...

MicroBalrog
February 16, 2004, 11:37 PM
Not as much as those who actually produce for the economy.

'Round those parts, there's an "Invalids' recuperative facility", filled with disabled people who lost limbs in 1948, 1959, 1967, 1973, 1982, and so on.

They do not produce for the economy. They don't matter, right?

Someone who drops a railroad tie on his foot no longer produces for the economy. Ah, drag him off the works, bring a new one, who cares.

People with <genuine> disabilities and temporary unemployment I can understand in terms of welfare, but able bodied people unwilling to work? Cut them off.

'tis how we do it round those parts, but how do you define 'unwilling'?


What's your stance on same-sex marriage?

If your religion lets you marry another man/woman, do so. If it doesn't, I don't think the State can regulate within your church walls - but it shouldn't also regulat within your bedroom walls. If your morals allow, you may commit sexual acts with men, women, geese, chicken, rotweilers and Sarah Brady in the same night, this is really not my problem.

on the anthrax case: Was there a possibility that she somehow guessed it was a hoax?

inventory0297
February 16, 2004, 11:57 PM
Round those parts, there's an "Invalids' recuperative facility", filled with disabled people who lost limbs in 1948, 1959, 1967, 1973, 1982, and so on.

They do not produce for the economy. They don't matter, right?

Someone who drops a railroad tie on his foot no longer produces for the economy. Ah, drag him off the works, bring a new one, who cares.

This statement is ridiculous on it's face. What you're talking about are war veterans and disabled persons, I fail to see what this has to do with welfare losers.

tis how we do it round those parts, but how do you define 'unwilling'?

Having turned down ANY job which others are willing to perform and which is within their physical capabilities. Being fired for laziness/incompetence/drug use would also make one "unwilling". At that point society as I see it has no further duty to them. Sink or swim.

MicroBalrog
February 17, 2004, 12:01 AM
Not as much as those who actually produce for the economy.

THat is how it's relevant. The disabled do not "produce for the economy".

And most of the unemployed are unemployed through physical lack of jobs.

Art Eatman
February 17, 2004, 12:30 AM
I'm trying to find a point to this thread, but it's wandering quite a lot.

Art

inventory0297
February 17, 2004, 12:32 AM
And most of the unemployed are unemployed through physical lack of jobs.

Maybe in Israel. Here we have people who make a profession of scamming welfare. They go so far as to have extra kids just to get more $$$ each month. Like I said above, we also have millions of illegal immigrants finding jobs all over. If this class of poor was willing to work they could. The fact that they're skill set is nil and they're worth only as much as an illegal Mexican is not my concern, nor should it be the government's. There is such a thing as a carrying capacity for good jobs, with the attendant competition for same.

This egalitarian, utopian and socialistic principle that it's our duty to help everyone who refuses to help themselves is pure tripe. The "bleed off" of resources in this country is nothing short of sickening, and I for one would like to see it stopped...... :cuss:

Bill Hook
February 17, 2004, 01:18 AM
They do not produce for the economy. They don't matter, right?

Honestly? Not as much as an able-bodied employed individual. Children and the elderly don't matter as much either. They get by through dispensations "society" is willing to grant, either for their future contributions or recognition for past contribution. Same for those who are disabled. Society cannot devote itself to providing for every need of non-producers and certainly not those unwilling to work or unable because of the poor choices they made.

BowStreetRunner
February 17, 2004, 01:31 AM
its not that they dont matter, but each person has a responsibility to take care of his or her business....if i dont learn up and get a good job, i dont get a house.......im not entitled to a house, i have to earn it

people who cannot care for themselves can get help, preferably from charities.........but what happens in the US is the ever widening of the class of people who "cannot care for themselves".......ask Mrs. Clinton, she wants to take care of all them
BSR

HunterGatherer
February 17, 2004, 05:14 AM
on the anthrax case: Was there a possibility that she somehow guessed it was a hoax?Say she did "guess" it was a hoax. What then - for the love of all that is Holy - would be the point of her histrionics?

Oh, that's right, she's a Demonrat. Histrionics is all they've got. eYeeeeaaahhh! Nevermind! :p ;)

If you enjoyed reading about "Pitiful Democratic Leadership" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!