The may be old news, this may be new news, frankly I am unsure. All I know is that America has once more shown me a reason why it's good to be Canadian.
I have learned in America you cannot get what you want without someone stepping on you. There is no such thing as no strings attached. In America you will possibly be smacked in the face a couple dozen times before someone hands you a piece of moldy cake which you'll scarf down and pretend it's the best thing in the entire world. In America the word common is never used before the word sense.
I've felt the same way before too...just a few days ago, I posted a thread, and it didn't get a single post. It was a long OP too!
I read it. I thought that it was unjust, and ironic. It shows how one can lose sight of justice when one robotically goes through bureaucratic procedures.
Wtf. Canada sucks yo. I mean seriously you say small and you expect to get your money's worth and they actually give you something that's as tiny as your hand. Sheesh.
Btw, Canada is 30 million people in a country that doesn't come close to comprising America's foreign involvement, so I don't see anything cool about taking pride in being Canadian because Canada doesn't have to worry about terrorism.
Whatever the case, I don't see the big deal. They're names will go through FBI's terrorscan. I sort of skimmed it, sorry if I sound dumb. But I couldn't see much info on the actual bill besides that their names will be scanned. So ... they'll be scanned, and chances are none of them will be terrorists, so win?
Besides, every 5 or so years (usually long enough for an international issue) if my family goes anywhere and I'm with them we get held up because we're brown and then we leave later. I don't see the issue
Wtf. Canada sucks yo. I mean seriously you say small and you expect to get your money's worth and they actually give you something that's as tiny as your hand. Sheesh.
Btw, Canada is 30 million people in a country that doesn't come close to comprising America's foreign involvement, so I don't see anything cool about taking pride in being Canadian because Canada doesn't have to worry about terrorism.
Uh, this really isn't about national pride. It's mainly about how unjust this is. It makes me sad to be in a country where things like this take place.
Maybe if the OP wasn't basically a drunken tweet about how much you hate America, filled largely with inane and utterly ignorant emotional appeals, you'd have more readership.
Maybe if the OP wasn't basically a drunken tweet about how much you hate America, filled largely with inane and utterly ignorant emotional appeals, you'd have more readership.
Fair point. However, I was trying to make a point over the injustice that exists in America when it comes to things like this. To me having the FBI check those who helped in 9/11, and now have resulting health problems, because they're afraid of "terrorists" is not only ridiculous it's completely and utterly disrespectful.
To me having the FBI check those who helped in 9/11, and now have resulting health problems, because they're afraid of "terrorists" is not only ridiculous it's completely and utterly disrespectful.
Well, the point of having terrorist checks in the first place is to catch people who actually have a chance of hurting someone else - not people how have saved others' lives in a national disaster.
Well, the point of having terrorist checks in the first place is to catch people who actually have a chance of hurting someone else - not people how have saved others' lives in a national disaster.
Really? Do you hoestly think the checks are necessary in a situation like this? Do the words "common decency" not apply to our world any more? What's next accusing war veterans of being terrorists?
I agree with you wolf, but even assuming they are necessary, they're being counterproductive calling these people terrorists.
Counter productive? The entire system is based on nothing more than fear mongering, paranoia and general stupidity. If i were to do something of equal stupidity I'd be fired from my place of employment.
Why is it that politicians can come up with the sheer BS they do and never get called on it?
Why is it that politicians can come up with the sheer BS they do and never get called on it?
Because there is no incentive not to.
You'll get fired for stuff like that because your employer wants to make money, and if you do something stupid that jeopardizes the business to some extent. Or at least wastes money.
But government has no incentive to not waste money. The amount it hurts a candidate is negligible. And most people don't even care, and most of those that do care are on the receiving end of the money.
Looking at this I can see where the rider is coming from. While I don't agree with it necessarily, I do see that some provisions need to be taken that those who were involved in, or supported, the 9/11 attacks do not reap the benefits of a taxpayer-funded health care bill.
If you had read the whole article you would see that it is not only responders who are eligible, but anyone who was in the area during the attacks, or who came into the area to provide aid. I personally would not at all be surprised if they find that there were terrorists in the area who were injured due to this and I don't want them getting my money to pay for their care.
While this has been done in bad taste and is likely, and understandably, going to be seen as an insult to many, we also have to recognize that there is at least some need for screening of this kind.
Why is it that politicians can come up with the sheer BS they do and never get called on it?
Well, what Einfach said and, "No one is above the law," yeah right, who came up with that. The people who have money can do what they want but, if it's a normal person well look out here comes everyone after you. Money is unfortunately power.
If you had read the whole article you would see that it is not only responders who are eligible, but anyone who was in the area during the attacks, or who came into the area to provide aid. I personally would not at all be surprised if they find that there were terrorists in the area who were injured due to this and I don't want them getting my money to pay for their care.
I read the entire thing thank you very much. I still am opposed to such ludicrous measures. Really? Is that the evil plot of the terrorists? Blow up the twin towers, enter the area and then reap benefits for healthcare? Note, sarcasm!
It sickens me that people have had to stoop this low. Heaven forbid we simply do something for the sake of common decency. No there has to be a paranoid monkey in a suit at the end of everything. If America is so concerned with terrorists how about you just have the government microchip you, oh wait, that would infringe on your "rights".
You know it's all gum drops and rainbows until a minority of people who deserve the utmost respect ask for something. America will shout until its blue in the face about liberty and equality, but the single moment, the very second, that someone, any one, asks to be a part of that equality, asks for respect as a human being, it turns into a fear mongering bureaucratic nightmare.
I read the entire thing thank you very much. I still am opposed to such ludicrous measures. Really? Is that the evil plot of the terrorists? Blow up the twin towers, enter the area and then reap benefits for healthcare? Note, sarcasm!
It sickens me that people have had to stoop this low. Heaven forbid we simply do something for the sake of common decency. No there has to be a paranoid monkey in a suit at the end of everything. If America is so concerned with terrorists how about you just have the government microchip you, oh wait, that would infringe on your "rights".
You know it's all gum drops and rainbows until a minority of people who deserve the utmost respect ask for something. America will shout until its blue in the face about liberty and equality, but the single moment, the very second, that someone, any one, asks to be a part of that equality, asks for respect as a human being, it turns into a fear mongering bureaucratic nightmare.
When exactly are you going to stop semi-ontopically ranting like a madman and start actually contributing to your own discussion?
Anyway, I'm somewhat conflicted towards this. It's an understandable precaution, scanning everyone who was in the area, but at the same time it checks people who worked to save lives in the wake of the disaster. It's certainly in bad taste - though the action isn't expressly doing it, they're indirectly casting suspicion on people who helped save lives here - but thinking that respecting these people's service by not scanning anybody in the area simply because they were in the area too is more important than trying to find terrorists who could've been connected to 9/11 is silly. Is it in bad taste? Yes. Is it really a problem? No. Should we go through with the scanning? I think so. Should we perhaps exclude the people who helped save lives out of respect? If it is what's needed for the scanning to go through, then yes.
