bootstrap
10-30-2007, 07:44 AM
Has anyone compared the magnitude and cost of 911 to normal everyday life in the USA?
Like Rudy, I was in Manhattan on September 11, 2001, and experienced the tragedy and consequences first hand. So according to Rudy, I assume, this gives me the right to hold an opinion, and ask a few questions. So answer this, Rudy.
Has anyone, in public or private, compared the losses of 9/11 with the normal ongoing losses that occur in the USA every year - in order to understand the relative magnitude and significance of 9/11, and estimate how much time, effort, attention and cost is appropriate to spend in response?
Consider the following statistics for deaths in the US during a recent year:
2,500,000 deaths from all causes --- during one calendar year
---------------------------
225,000 doctor caused (admitted by doctors, estimated total is 700,000)
100,000 injury
100,000 alcohol
35,000 fire-arms
30,000 sexual diseases
25,000 car-accidents
20,000 illegal-drugs
3,000 terrorism on 911 ----- this is one time only, not every year
If doctors kill about 100 times as many people EVERY YEAR as terrorists killed on September 11th, why should the US spend 1 trillion dollars fighting a war against terrorism (though Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism before the US invaded)?
How unbelievably screwed-up can priorities be? How obvious can it be that the power-that-be are war-mongers and power-lusting empire-spreaders who latched onto the events of 9/11 to make their corporate buddies in oil and war support companies rich? Don't forget, Bush and Cheney were both oil company executives and their closest buddies were mostly military-industrial complex executives. This cannot be coincidence!
Or, even if you believe the neo-con intentions are as pure as the driven snow, how can anyone support such phenomenally unbalanced expenditures of money (not to mention 5000 additional american lives, plus hundreds of thousands of foreigners)?
In the face of such absurd waste of money and life, how can *any* american justify voting for any candidate in either party other than Ron Paul --- since every one of them in both party wants to keep the troops in Irag indefinitely! The costs are a factor of one-billion out of whack! Insane!
I am curious. Given these indisputable statistics (and conclusion) how can any supporter of any other candidate justify not voting for Ron Paul instead?
-----
PS: All you creative wizards making those great youtube video pro Ron Paul, feel free to steal any or all of the above for your next video.
-----
##### to vote for Ron Paul is the real patriot act #####
Like Rudy, I was in Manhattan on September 11, 2001, and experienced the tragedy and consequences first hand. So according to Rudy, I assume, this gives me the right to hold an opinion, and ask a few questions. So answer this, Rudy.
Has anyone, in public or private, compared the losses of 9/11 with the normal ongoing losses that occur in the USA every year - in order to understand the relative magnitude and significance of 9/11, and estimate how much time, effort, attention and cost is appropriate to spend in response?
Consider the following statistics for deaths in the US during a recent year:
2,500,000 deaths from all causes --- during one calendar year
---------------------------
225,000 doctor caused (admitted by doctors, estimated total is 700,000)
100,000 injury
100,000 alcohol
35,000 fire-arms
30,000 sexual diseases
25,000 car-accidents
20,000 illegal-drugs
3,000 terrorism on 911 ----- this is one time only, not every year
If doctors kill about 100 times as many people EVERY YEAR as terrorists killed on September 11th, why should the US spend 1 trillion dollars fighting a war against terrorism (though Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism before the US invaded)?
How unbelievably screwed-up can priorities be? How obvious can it be that the power-that-be are war-mongers and power-lusting empire-spreaders who latched onto the events of 9/11 to make their corporate buddies in oil and war support companies rich? Don't forget, Bush and Cheney were both oil company executives and their closest buddies were mostly military-industrial complex executives. This cannot be coincidence!
Or, even if you believe the neo-con intentions are as pure as the driven snow, how can anyone support such phenomenally unbalanced expenditures of money (not to mention 5000 additional american lives, plus hundreds of thousands of foreigners)?
In the face of such absurd waste of money and life, how can *any* american justify voting for any candidate in either party other than Ron Paul --- since every one of them in both party wants to keep the troops in Irag indefinitely! The costs are a factor of one-billion out of whack! Insane!
I am curious. Given these indisputable statistics (and conclusion) how can any supporter of any other candidate justify not voting for Ron Paul instead?
-----
PS: All you creative wizards making those great youtube video pro Ron Paul, feel free to steal any or all of the above for your next video.
-----
##### to vote for Ron Paul is the real patriot act #####