So this is how we treat our Heroes

[Modbert]

Maybe I'm missing something? The only 'apology' I can see would be for something not worthy of even a post. The claim would be for attacks on US being justified because of US being in Middle East.

What the hell are you on? You owe me an apology for calling me ignorant and practically a liar.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I am probably going to take a lot of nasty foul mouthed heat for the following comment. But, in my opinion, the local responders should be paid via local funds not via the federal government. They signed up for a job with unknown future risks. I appreciate the service rendered. However, from a constitutional standpoint, I disagree with local responders getting federal money aid. That may sound callous or heartless to some here. But, when it comes to the law, I believe we need to try and take the personal emotions out of the equation.

They didn't sign up for any job. Plenty of people randomly came down to volunteer to help to find bodies, etc. This isn't about personal emotions, this is about what is right.

If you are talking about good Samaritans, I believe that should be left to the respective states to handle as they see fit, not the federal government.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

If I had been there when it happened, I would have gone in to help as much as I could. And if I got sick afterwards, I wouldn't have looked to the government for help. Why should my fellow Americans have the government take money from them by force, to pay medical bills of mine, because I took action of my own volition? I wouldn't ask or accept such from my fellow Americans. That is what sacrifice and service is about, in my opinion. I would hold me head up high til my last breath knowing I did the right thing regardless of the consequences.

 

[Modbert]

If I had been there when it happened, I would have gone in to help as much as I could. And if I got sick afterwards, I wouldn't have looked to the government for help. Why should my fellow Americans have the government take money from them by force, to pay medical bills of mine, because I took action of my own volition? I wouldn't ask or accept such from my fellow Americans. That is what sacrifice and service is about, in my opinion. I would hold me head up high til my last breath knowing I did the right thing regardless of the consequences.

I mean no offense when I say the following:

It's easy to say that when you're not dying in the hospital bed or don't have the chance of dying. It's easy to say that when you're not knocking on heaven's door practically but have a wife, kids, etc all without any support system if you were to die. Not only that, but they'll be in massive debt possibly because of your medical bills or at the very least funeral bills. While your parents (if you have any) may help, they would also go to into debt perhaps.

Many of these people can't even afford the basic treatment. They volunteered to look for their fellow Americans, not to die because their Government, their country, and their fellow Americans betrayed them on their hour of need.

Sometimes, the cost doesn't matter when it comes to human lives. Especially in cases like this, where the Government should of known and had warned people or least gave them something to protect themselves.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

If I had been there when it happened, I would have gone in to help as much as I could. And if I got sick afterwards, I wouldn't have looked to the government for help. Why should my fellow Americans have the government take money from them by force, to pay medical bills of mine, because I took action of my own volition? I wouldn't ask or accept such from my fellow Americans. That is what sacrifice and service is about, in my opinion. I would hold me head up high til my last breath knowing I did the right thing regardless of the consequences.

I mean no offense when I say the following:

It's easy to say that when you're not dying in the hospital bed or don't have the chance of dying. It's easy to say that when you're not knocking on heaven's door practically but have a wife, kids, etc all without any support system if you were to die. Not only that, but they'll be in massive debt possibly because of your medical bills or at the very least funeral bills. While your parents (if you have any) may help, they would also go to into debt perhaps.

Many of these people can't even afford the basic treatment. They volunteered to look for their fellow Americans, not to die because their Government, their country, and their fellow Americans betrayed them on their hour of need.

Sometimes, the cost doesn't matter when it comes to human lives. Especially in cases like this, where the Government should of known and had warned people or least gave them something to protect themselves.

No offense taken. I do take umbrage with someone who takes action of their own volition, complains about the consequences of their own actions, and then expects the government to come to their aid.

I respect those who volunteered and haven't asked for any kind of renumeration from the state or federal government. I respect those who have turned down any such renumeration.

I am probably in the minority here with my viewpoint. And if so, that is ok. I am used to the heat. lol

Edited to add: You are assuming I have never known what it is like to be knocking on heaven's door. You assumed wrong. You assumed I have not seen a lot of death in my life. You assumed wrong. It is best not to assume.

 

[Vel]

If I had been there when it happened, I would have gone in to help as much as I could. And if I got sick afterwards, I wouldn't have looked to the government for help. Why should my fellow Americans have the government take money from them by force, to pay medical bills of mine, because I took action of my own volition? I wouldn't ask or accept such from my fellow Americans. That is what sacrifice and service is about, in my opinion. I would hold me head up high til my last breath knowing I did the right thing regardless of the consequences.

I mean no offense when I say the following:

It's easy to say that when you're not dying in the hospital bed or don't have the chance of dying. It's easy to say that when you're not knocking on heaven's door practically but have a wife, kids, etc all without any support system if you were to die. Not only that, but they'll be in massive debt possibly because of your medical bills or at the very least funeral bills. While your parents (if you have any) may help, they would also go to into debt perhaps.

Many of these people can't even afford the basic treatment. They volunteered to look for their fellow Americans, not to die because their Government, their country, and their fellow Americans betrayed them on their hour of need.

Sometimes, the cost doesn't matter when it comes to human lives. Especially in cases like this, where the Government should of known and had warned people or least gave them something to protect themselves.

Should they have consulted their crystal ball? Really, use a little common sense. There were times during that morning that the causualty estimates were thought to be as high as 50,000. Do you really think there was time for a government study on toxins in a building hit by planes?
And yes, I think our government has a duty to provide for those that stepped up to help their fellow citizens.
And may I suggest that the next time the left start crying about Mohammad Atta being waterboarded, that you think about the people that bastard is STILL killing.

 

[xotoxi]

If I had been there when it happened, I would have gone in to help as much as I could. And if I got sick afterwards, I wouldn't have looked to the government for help. Why should my fellow Americans have the government take money from them by force, to pay medical bills of mine, because I took action of my own volition? I wouldn't ask or accept such from my fellow Americans. That is what sacrifice and service is about, in my opinion. I would hold me head up high til my last breath knowing I did the right thing regardless of the consequences.

Do you feel the same way about military personnel who need medical care...that they should pay for their medical expenses themselves and not ask or accept such from their fellow Americans?

After all, that is what sacrifice and service is about.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

If I had been there when it happened, I would have gone in to help as much as I could. And if I got sick afterwards, I wouldn't have looked to the government for help. Why should my fellow Americans have the government take money from them by force, to pay medical bills of mine, because I took action of my own volition? I wouldn't ask or accept such from my fellow Americans. That is what sacrifice and service is about, in my opinion. I would hold me head up high til my last breath knowing I did the right thing regardless of the consequences.

Do you feel the same way about military personnel who need medical care...that they should pay for their medical expenses themselves and not ask or accept such from their fellow Americans?

After all, that is what sacrifice and service is about.

I was speaking from a private entity level. That is not the same as military service, in my opinion. I have no problem with medical care for soldiers.

 

[Modbert]

Should they have consulted their crystal ball? Really, use a little common sense. There were times during that morning that the causualty estimates were thought to be as high as 50,000. Do you really think there was time for a government study on toxins in a building hit by planes?
And yes, I think our government has a duty to provide for those that stepped up to help their fellow citizens.
And may I suggest that the next time the left start crying about Mohammad Atta being waterboarded, that you think about the people that bastard is STILL killing.

Uhm, I was referring to warning them about the risks of what could happen after the fact. I do realize how hectic that day was and the focus was on saving people, not the toxins. They could of nipped this in the bud after the fact which I will explain below.

It seems you totally took my statement the wrong way. Preventive Care has been proven to save lives. If the Government stepped forward in the first place, admitted the problem, gave compensation to the first responders who ended up showing up with cancer, having them all screened right away, etc then maybe this problem could of been lessened to what it has ended up being.

I understand how you could of taken that statement wrong, but a simple apology would be nice considering your remarks.

 

[xotoxi]

I am probably going to take a lot of nasty foul mouthed heat for the following comment. But, in my opinion, the local responders should be paid via local funds not via the federal government. They signed up for a job with unknown future risks. I appreciate the service rendered. However, from a constitutional standpoint, I disagree with local responders getting federal money aid. That may sound callous or heartless to some here. But, when it comes to the law, I believe we need to try and take the personal emotions out of the equation.

Was the 9/11 attacks an act of war?

Was it an act of war on New York City, or on America?

So you truly don't think that taxpayers in Miami, Houston, and Denver shouldn't pitch in tax funds to help pay for the rescue and recovery effort resulting from an act of war on the United States?

Instead, that should just be New York State and New York City that pays everything.

And what about the Pentagon...would that be Virginia? Or maybe the City of Arlington?

Just trying to understand your reasoning....

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I am probably going to take a lot of nasty foul mouthed heat for the following comment. But, in my opinion, the local responders should be paid via local funds not via the federal government. They signed up for a job with unknown future risks. I appreciate the service rendered. However, from a constitutional standpoint, I disagree with local responders getting federal money aid. That may sound callous or heartless to some here. But, when it comes to the law, I believe we need to try and take the personal emotions out of the equation.

Was the 9/11 attacks an act of war?

Was it an act of war on New York City, or on America?

So you truly don't think that taxpayers in Miami, Houston, and Denver shouldn't pitch in tax funds to help pay for the rescue and recovery effort resulting from an act of war on the United States?

Instead, that should just be New York State and New York City that pays everything.

And what about the Pentagon...would that be Virginia? Or maybe the City of Arlington?

Just trying to understand your reasoning....

The subject of the thread is federal government payment for the volunteers who worked in the rubble. I have been very specific in my posting. In fact, I have given my legal reasoning, as well as my "personal feelings" reasoning on the matter. I don't understand why you post seeking to understand my reasoning, when I have already explained my reasoning. What specific part of my posting in this thread is unclear to you?

 

[Modbert]

To not take away from him answering, but Al Qaeda considered every target on 9/11 to be a military target. Notice the ones they attacked:

The Pentagon
The attempt on the White House
And of course The Twin Towers.

They wanted to cause more than just those two buildings to collapse, they wanted to cause as much chaos as possible in New York and across America. If they were out to hit non-Military targets and more financial targets, they could of just as easily hit Wall Street which would of probably sent this country into a recession pretty damn quickly.

 

[xotoxi]

I am probably going to take a lot of nasty foul mouthed heat for the following comment. But, in my opinion, the local responders should be paid via local funds not via the federal government. They signed up for a job with unknown future risks. I appreciate the service rendered. However, from a constitutional standpoint, I disagree with local responders getting federal money aid. That may sound callous or heartless to some here. But, when it comes to the law, I believe we need to try and take the personal emotions out of the equation.

Was the 9/11 attacks an act of war?

Was it an act of war on New York City, or on America?

So you truly don't think that taxpayers in Miami, Houston, and Denver shouldn't pitch in tax funds to help pay for the rescue and recovery effort resulting from an act of war on the United States?

Instead, that should just be New York State and New York City that pays everything.

And what about the Pentagon...would that be Virginia? Or maybe the City of Arlington?

Just trying to understand your reasoning....

The subject of the thread is federal government payment for the volunteers who worked in the rubble. I have been very specific in my posting. In fact, I have given my legal reasoning, as well as my "personal feelings" reasoning on the matter. I don't understand why you post seeking to understand my reasoning, when I have already explained my reasoning. What specific part of my posting in this thread is unclear to you?

The basic fundamental principles behind your reasoning.

We differ...but that is what makes you a BasicGreatGuy and makes me a SuperTerrificGuy.

 

[Si modo]

....

Was the 9/11 attacks an act of war? ...

Absolutely. The Pentagon. Sovereign territory attack on inhabitants.

 

[jillian]

I am probably going to take a lot of nasty foul mouthed heat for the following comment. But, in my opinion, the local responders should be paid via local funds not via the federal government. They signed up for a job with unknown future risks. I appreciate the service rendered. However, from a constitutional standpoint, I disagree with local responders getting federal money aid. That may sound callous or heartless to some here. But, when it comes to the law, I believe we need to try and take the personal emotions out of the equation.

There's another issue involved. Christie Whitman, on behalf of our federal government, told us the EPA determined that the air at ground zero wasn't dangerous. So, the EPA told the rescue workers it was ok to be down there. Now, why anyone believed her, I'm not realy sure because you could smell how toxic the air was downtown even a month later. But the Feds have to share the responsibility for these people who cleaned up what they insist was an attack on our country and not NYC alone.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Was the 9/11 attacks an act of war?

Was it an act of war on New York City, or on America?

So you truly don't think that taxpayers in Miami, Houston, and Denver shouldn't pitch in tax funds to help pay for the rescue and recovery effort resulting from an act of war on the United States?

Instead, that should just be New York State and New York City that pays everything.

And what about the Pentagon...would that be Virginia? Or maybe the City of Arlington?

Just trying to understand your reasoning....

The subject of the thread is federal government payment for the volunteers who worked in the rubble. I have been very specific in my posting. In fact, I have given my legal reasoning, as well as my "personal feelings" reasoning on the matter. I don't understand why you post seeking to understand my reasoning, when I have already explained my reasoning. What specific part of my posting in this thread is unclear to you?

The basic fundamental principles behind your reasoning.

We differ...but that is what makes you a BasicGreatGuy and makes me a SuperTerrificGuy.

I am not trying to be obtuse here, but I am asking for specifics with my posts, and you retort with a statement pertaining to that which I have already addressed. I have already explained my reasoning and the predicated fundamental reasoning thereto.

On a personal level, I do not believe it is right for me to volunteer for such a task, and then complain to the government after the fact. If I were to get sick or become terminally ill, that is on my shoulders. I would not ask or accept help to that end. That is what I was speaking of, when I made the comment about personal sacrifice.

On a legal level, I don't believe the feds have any business paying local FF, PD, or civilian volunteers. As I have already said, that is for the respective states to work out as they see fit, in my opinion.

It is possible to be a STG while disagreeing with me. I don't know you personally, so I can't agree or disagree with you on that proclaimed status.

You are correct. We differ on this issue. I am not surprised. I don't think we have agreed on anything politically than I have seen. lol It happens.

Thank you for the civil discourse. I don't agree with you politically, but as long as it stays civil, that is fine.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I am probably going to take a lot of nasty foul mouthed heat for the following comment. But, in my opinion, the local responders should be paid via local funds not via the federal government. They signed up for a job with unknown future risks. I appreciate the service rendered. However, from a constitutional standpoint, I disagree with local responders getting federal money aid. That may sound callous or heartless to some here. But, when it comes to the law, I believe we need to try and take the personal emotions out of the equation.

There's another issue involved. Christie Whitman, on behalf of our federal government, told us the EPA determined that the air at ground zero wasn't dangerous. So, the EPA told the rescue workers it was ok to be down there. Now, why anyone believed her, I'm not realy sure because you could smell how toxic the air was downtown even a month later. But the Feds have to share the responsibility for these people who cleaned up what they insist was an attack on our country and not NYC alone.

If what you state is true Jillian, that still doesn't change my position. If what you state is true, that was a very stupid statement to make by Christie Whitman. Be that as it may, I believe civilians are responsible for their own actions. They wanted to help and they went. No one forced them to.

 

[Si modo]

BGG, I see your points. However, the attacks were undisputabley a national issue - they were an act of war on our nation. It's a fed jurisdiction.

 

[jillian]

I am probably going to take a lot of nasty foul mouthed heat for the following comment. But, in my opinion, the local responders should be paid via local funds not via the federal government. They signed up for a job with unknown future risks. I appreciate the service rendered. However, from a constitutional standpoint, I disagree with local responders getting federal money aid. That may sound callous or heartless to some here. But, when it comes to the law, I believe we need to try and take the personal emotions out of the equation.

There's another issue involved. Christie Whitman, on behalf of our federal government, told us the EPA determined that the air at ground zero wasn't dangerous. So, the EPA told the rescue workers it was ok to be down there. Now, why anyone believed her, I'm not realy sure because you could smell how toxic the air was downtown even a month later. But the Feds have to share the responsibility for these people who cleaned up what they insist was an attack on our country and not NYC alone.

If what you state is true Jillian, that still doesn't change my position. If what you state is true, that was a very stupid statement to make by Christie Whitman. Be that as it may, I believe civilians are responsible for their own actions. They wanted to help and they went. No one forced them to.

No offense, but not *if* it was true. It WAS true.

Five days after the attacks, Whitman told reporters, "The good news continues to be that air samples we have taken have all been at levels that cause no concern."

In their class-action suit, residents, workers and students living around Ground Zero say they relied on Whitman's comments in deciding whether to return to an area coated with dust from the twin towers' collapse.

"If she had not said this, they probably would have made their own decision," Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-Manhattan) said after the hearing. "She was telling people it was safe when she knew damn well it wasn't."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/200...an_lied_about_ground_zero_.html#ixzz0QrTaXdRv


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/12/11/2007-12-11_christie_whitman_lied_about_ground_zero_.html

And lest you say that is a function of the litigation involved. This was the EPA Statement on September 18, 2001:

We are very encouraged that the results from our monitoring of air quality and drinking water conditions in both New York and near the Pentagon show that the public in these areas is not being exposed to excessive levels of asbestos or other harmful substances," Whitman said. "Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breath and their water is safe to drink," she added.

http://www.epa.gov/wtc/stories/headline_091801.htm


One can always say people make their choices... but one can make the same comment about people who *chose* to enlist in the military. And there's not a lot to respond to in your post since it seems more ideologically-based than based on any particular set of facts.

But thanks for letting me know it was an attack on NYC and not an attack on the U.S. I'll remember that next time someone wants to wave the flag around 9/11. I've always thought it was an attack on the U.S.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

There's another issue involved. Christie Whitman, on behalf of our federal government, told us the EPA determined that the air at ground zero wasn't dangerous. So, the EPA told the rescue workers it was ok to be down there. Now, why anyone believed her, I'm not realy sure because you could smell how toxic the air was downtown even a month later. But the Feds have to share the responsibility for these people who cleaned up what they insist was an attack on our country and not NYC alone.

If what you state is true Jillian, that still doesn't change my position. If what you state is true, that was a very stupid statement to make by Christie Whitman. Be that as it may, I believe civilians are responsible for their own actions. They wanted to help and they went. No one forced them to.

No offense, but not *if* it was true. It WAS true.

Five days after the attacks, Whitman told reporters, "The good news continues to be that air samples we have taken have all been at levels that cause no concern."

In their class-action suit, residents, workers and students living around Ground Zero say they relied on Whitman's comments in deciding whether to return to an area coated with dust from the twin towers' collapse.

"If she had not said this, they probably would have made their own decision," Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-Manhattan) said after the hearing. "She was telling people it was safe when she knew damn well it wasn't."

Read more: Christie Whitman lied about Ground Zero air quality, 9/11 victims' lawyers say


Christie Whitman lied about Ground Zero air quality, 9/11 victims' lawyers say

One can always say people make their choices... but one can make the same comment about people who *chose* to enlist in the military. And there's not a lot to respond to in your post since it seems more ideologically-based than based on any particular set of facts.

But thanks for letting me know it was an attack on NYC and not an attack on the U.S. I'll remember that next time someone wants to wave the flag around 9/11.

Where have I said that the attacks where not an act of war on this Republic? I haven't said any such thing Jillian. You are assuming that is my position. You assumed wrong.

I said " if true," because it has been a long time since I read the EPA story, and I did not have the information in front of me, much less remember contextual specifics. I wasn't saying that as some kind of insult to you.

If Joe Q Public goes in to help, I believe he is on his own. If the state wants to renumerate in some way for services rendered, even if voluntary, that is fine. I don't believe the fed government has any business in paying private citizens for actions of their own volition.