(10-15-2014 08:38 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 05:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  And to reply to the rest of your comment. I think the CDC should be allowed to study whatever it deems appropriate to study. the CDC is not your typical govt agency. for politics to block it from studying/addressing something is a grave mistake.

And when given the opportunity to study what "it deems appropriate", the CDC has chosen such hot button items like lesbian obesity, male fruit fly sexual preferences and origami condoms.............

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...earch.html

like i said, they touch base on just about anything and everything.

(10-15-2014 09:20 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:08 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 06:44 PM)john01992 Wrote:  they have an entire section dedicated just for automobile accidents
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/

So, why do we also have a Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration which also studies motor vehicle safety? Seems redundant, inefficient and wasteful.

john01992 Wrote:If multiple people died from it, you can bet the CDC has covered it. so why you think guns which is much more logical for them to cover than a lot of this stuff is not in their realm is beyond me.

The average American probably doesn't expect, nor want, an agency called the CDC to study pool or fireworks safety. If the CDC wants to do those things, change their name and better advertise their charter. Truth in advertising, you know?

They won't get support.

valid points. however how come those points only extend to removing guns from the CDC but not others

You gotta start somewhere, and one less thing in their portfolio is a plus.

(10-15-2014 09:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  so to be clear you don't have an issue with partisan politics dictating what the CDC can & can not do?

Let me be clear (I love using that phrase in the last 6 years)....i don't have an issue with the government dictating what it's agencies should be doing. It's called oversight.

I agree that it shouldn't have come down to a gun study bringing this issue up but now that they have, I'm glad they did. It's no different than when other special interest groups (unions, minority groups, LGBT, etc.) bring to the light of day inefficiencies, corruption, wrong doings, etc.....

(10-15-2014 09:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 08:38 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 05:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  And to reply to the rest of your comment. I think the CDC should be allowed to study whatever it deems appropriate to study. the CDC is not your typical govt agency. for politics to block it from studying/addressing something is a grave mistake.

And when given the opportunity to study what "it deems appropriate", the CDC has chosen such hot button items like lesbian obesity, male fruit fly sexual preferences and origami condoms.............

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...earch.html

like i said, they touch base on just about anything and everything.

You don't get off that easily. When the ebola crisis hits, and the CDC and Democratic congressmen claim the the right has savaged the precious dollars allocated to the CDC, and then you understand where they choose to spend what money they do get, the problem is not funding - rather, it is prioritization and mission creep. I am so tired of hearing how something is underfunded, only to see the waste when you take a deep look under that organization's skirt.

(10-15-2014 09:24 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:20 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:08 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 06:44 PM)john01992 Wrote:  they have an entire section dedicated just for automobile accidents
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/

So, why do we also have a Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration which also studies motor vehicle safety? Seems redundant, inefficient and wasteful.

john01992 Wrote:If multiple people died from it, you can bet the CDC has covered it. so why you think guns which is much more logical for them to cover than a lot of this stuff is not in their realm is beyond me.

The average American probably doesn't expect, nor want, an agency called the CDC to study pool or fireworks safety. If the CDC wants to do those things, change their name and better advertise their charter. Truth in advertising, you know?

They won't get support.

valid points. however how come those points only extend to removing guns from the CDC but not others

You gotta start somewhere, and one less thing in their portfolio is a plus.

here it is guys ^^^ this ladies and gents is why I am always bashing republicans. it is clearly evident that their attitude is "only when it agrees with my ideology" when discussing right & wrong. seriously what a joke.

(10-15-2014 09:36 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 08:38 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 05:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  And to reply to the rest of your comment. I think the CDC should be allowed to study whatever it deems appropriate to study. the CDC is not your typical govt agency. for politics to block it from studying/addressing something is a grave mistake.

And when given the opportunity to study what "it deems appropriate", the CDC has chosen such hot button items like lesbian obesity, male fruit fly sexual preferences and origami condoms.............

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...earch.html

like i said, they touch base on just about anything and everything.

You don't get off that easily. When the ebola crisis hits, and the CDC and Democratic congressmen claim the the right has savaged the precious dollars allocated to the CDC, and then you understand where they choose to spend what money they do get, the problem is not funding - rather, it is prioritization and mission creep. I am so tired of hearing how something is underfunded, only to see the waste when you take a deep look under that organization's skirt.

the CDC works the way it does because they try to cover everything possible. they should be getting free reign because when you have the politicians dictating what the CDC should & should not do, that's when the **** hits the fan.

(10-15-2014 09:32 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  so to be clear you don't have an issue with partisan politics dictating what the CDC can & can not do?

Let me be clear (I love using that phrase in the last 6 years)....i don't have an issue with the government dictating what it's agencies should be doing. It's called oversight.

I agree that it shouldn't have come down to a gun study bringing this issue up but now that they have, I'm glad they did. It's no different than when other special interest groups (unions, minority groups, LGBT, etc.) bring to the light of day inefficiencies, corruption, wrong doings, etc.....

like i said, the fact that this is the only thing the CDC has ever been blocked from studying is pretty telling. how many gun deaths are there per year.

(10-15-2014 09:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:24 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  You gotta start somewhere, and one less thing in their portfolio is a plus.

here it is guys ^^^ this ladies and gents is why I am always bashing republicans. it is clearly evident that their attitude is "only when it agrees with my ideology" when discussing right & wrong. seriously what a joke.

Of course, this doesn't apply to you, as evidenced by your postings.

(10-15-2014 09:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:32 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  so to be clear you don't have an issue with partisan politics dictating what the CDC can & can not do?

Let me be clear (I love using that phrase in the last 6 years)....i don't have an issue with the government dictating what it's agencies should be doing. It's called oversight.

I agree that it shouldn't have come down to a gun study bringing this issue up but now that they have, I'm glad they did. It's no different than when other special interest groups (unions, minority groups, LGBT, etc.) bring to the light of day inefficiencies, corruption, wrong doings, etc.....

like i said, the fact that this is the only thing the CDC has ever been blocked from studying is pretty telling. how many gun deaths are there per year.

I'll play your game. So, it's telling that you're OK with government waste?

But seriously, I've acknowledged the gun thing but are you willing to admit that I and others in this thread have made a strong case that the CDC should focus their spending on studying diseases, especially if they are complaining about funding inadequacies?

(10-15-2014 09:51 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:36 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 08:38 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 05:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  And to reply to the rest of your comment. I think the CDC should be allowed to study whatever it deems appropriate to study. the CDC is not your typical govt agency. for politics to block it from studying/addressing something is a grave mistake.

And when given the opportunity to study what "it deems appropriate", the CDC has chosen such hot button items like lesbian obesity, male fruit fly sexual preferences and origami condoms.............

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...earch.html

like i said, they touch base on just about anything and everything.

You don't get off that easily. When the ebola crisis hits, and the CDC and Democratic congressmen claim the the right has savaged the precious dollars allocated to the CDC, and then you understand where they choose to spend what money they do get, the problem is not funding - rather, it is prioritization and mission creep. I am so tired of hearing how something is underfunded, only to see the waste when you take a deep look under that organization's skirt.

the CDC works the way it does because they try to cover everything possible. they should be getting free reign because when you have the politicians dictating what the CDC should & should not do, that's when the **** hits the fan.

So the study of ****-throwing apes, alternate condoms, and fat dykes take precedence over an incurable virus that has routinely appeared in Africa?? Methinks the someone has taken their eyes off of the target.

(10-15-2014 09:52 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:24 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  You gotta start somewhere, and one less thing in their portfolio is a plus.

here it is guys ^^^ this ladies and gents is why I am always bashing republicans. it is clearly evident that their attitude is "only when it agrees with my ideology" when discussing right & wrong. seriously what a joke.

Of course, this doesn't apply to you, as evidenced by your postings.

it doesn't. my attitude has always been about doing what is right and treating both sides equally. I have blasted democrats in RI for their voter ID BS just like republicans. I have blasted clinton for deregulation just like reagan. I have blasted affirmative action, and if liberals had done something like this to the CDC I would of been just as furious with it. the CDC should be the last agency politicians should be allowed to F*** around with. the CDC is our watchdog. it is tasked with being the go to agency for the public if they want information on it. You may laugh at their strikeouts, but they hit homeruns when they need to. yes you get **** like what ODU found, but for every story like that you have cases where they do good. the CDC investigating pool deaths is what ultimately raised awareness of the issue with those drains and now pool installers are starting to take steps to fix that. the little things ultimately do add up. the CDC works because anytime the see a problem, they don't hesitate to look at it, and they end up capping something before it gets worse. for every 99 bad examples, there is 1 good one that makes up for it all.

(10-15-2014 09:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:24 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  [quote='john01992' pid='11253514' dateline='1413426015']

You gotta start somewhere, and one less thing in their portfolio is a plus.

here it is guys ^^^ this ladies and gents is why I am always bashing republicans. it is clearly evident that their attitude is "only when it agrees with my ideology" when discussing right & wrong. seriously what a joke.

Actually, no, it is the adult and real world thing to do. It isn't ideology, it is common sense. I want the CDC to study DISEASE. If you want someone to study gun crime, get engaged and lobby for the Bureau of Gun Stats. Make the argument. Having the CDC do it is dishonest and cowardly. Gun violence isn't a disease.

(10-15-2014 09:51 PM)john01992 Wrote:  the CDC works the way it does because they try to cover everything possible. they should be getting free reign because when you have the politicians dictating what the CDC should & should not do, that's when the **** hits the fan.

So, in your world, the CDC operates with no oversight and no accountability to anyone. Got it.

(10-15-2014 09:58 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:51 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:36 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 08:38 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  And when given the opportunity to study what "it deems appropriate", the CDC has chosen such hot button items like lesbian obesity, male fruit fly sexual preferences and origami condoms.............

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...earch.html

like i said, they touch base on just about anything and everything.

You don't get off that easily. When the ebola crisis hits, and the CDC and Democratic congressmen claim the the right has savaged the precious dollars allocated to the CDC, and then you understand where they choose to spend what money they do get, the problem is not funding - rather, it is prioritization and mission creep. I am so tired of hearing how something is underfunded, only to see the waste when you take a deep look under that organization's skirt.

the CDC works the way it does because they try to cover everything possible. they should be getting free reign because when you have the politicians dictating what the CDC should & should not do, that's when the **** hits the fan.

So the study of ****-throwing apes, alternate condoms, and fat dykes take precedence over an incurable virus that has routinely appeared in Africa?? Methinks the someone has taken their eyes off of the target.

reminds me of the dumb shrimp on a treadmill talking point. the people who cite stuff like that are the ones who don't understand this kind of stuff. they just like being angry over something and being too partisan to see the big picture.

yes you have stuff like shrimp on a treadmill, but for every crazy ideas like that that goes nowhere, you have a crazy idea such as a shark skin study which lead to a breakthrough that will save the navy billions of dollars and in the medical world is gonna save a lot of lives. research/studies work this way. you get crazy **** like condoms and shrimp, but at the end of the day when you focus on the big picture you realize that all of it put together was a net positive.

(10-15-2014 10:03 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:51 PM)john01992 Wrote:  the CDC works the way it does because they try to cover everything possible. they should be getting free reign because when you have the politicians dictating what the CDC should & should not do, that's when the **** hits the fan.

So, in your world, the CDC operates with no oversight and no accountability to anyone. Got it.

theres a big difference between saying you don't want the CDC to have accountability and what I am saying that politics should influence what the CDC can and can not do.

(10-15-2014 10:01 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:24 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  [quote='john01992' pid='11253514' dateline='1413426015']

You gotta start somewhere, and one less thing in their portfolio is a plus.

here it is guys ^^^ this ladies and gents is why I am always bashing republicans. it is clearly evident that their attitude is "only when it agrees with my ideology" when discussing right & wrong. seriously what a joke.

Actually, no, it is the adult and real world thing to do. It isn't ideology, it is common sense. I want the CDC to study DISEASE. If you want someone to study gun crime, get engaged and lobby for the Bureau of Gun Stats. Make the argument. Having the CDC do it is dishonest and cowardly. Gun violence isn't a disease.

I want it to do both and not be specifically excluded from researching something that kills 30K americans a year because the NRA told a politician to do so.

(10-15-2014 10:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  theres a big difference between saying you don't want the CDC to have accountability and what I am saying that politics should influence what the CDC can and can not do.

Actually, no. Since the CDC is overseen by politicians, in your argument, those responsible for oversight can't fulfill their obligations, because you'll label anything they do as "political."

I vote for my senator and rep to represent my interests and beliefs. I don't believe the CDC should study gun violence. It detracts from their core mission. In your world, if my senator votes to not fund gun violence studies, they are partisan and improperly influencing what the CDC does.

(10-15-2014 10:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I want it to do both and not be specifically excluded from researching something that kills 30K americans a year because the NRA told a politician to do so.

I'd agree with you wholeheartedly if we were talking about an agency that deals with public safety or violence or crime or the like.

Most posters here know that I'm not a partisan hack or extremist in even the broadest definition.

(10-15-2014 10:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I want it to do both and not be specifically excluded from researching something that kills 30K americans a year because the NRA told a politician to do so.

For the last time, gun violence isn't a disease. The vast majority of Americans would agree with that statement.

I told the politician that I don't want that under the CDC. Who gives a crap what the NRA does?

However, you are good with Handguns, Inc., wait, I mean the Brady Campaign, etc. to advocate for that study. Got it.

(10-15-2014 10:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:58 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  So the study of ****-throwing apes, alternate condoms, and fat dykes take precedence over an incurable virus that has routinely appeared in Africa?? Methinks the someone has taken their eyes off of the target.

reminds me of the dumb shrimp on a treadmill talking point. the people who cite stuff like that are the ones who don't understand this kind of stuff. they just like being angry over something and being too partisan to see the big picture.

yes you have stuff like shrimp on a treadmill, but for every crazy ideas like that that goes nowhere, you have a crazy idea such as a shark skin study which lead to a breakthrough that will save the navy billions of dollars and in the medical world is gonna save a lot of lives. research/studies work this way. you get crazy **** like condoms and shrimp, but at the end of the day when you focus on the big picture you realize that all of it put together was a net positive.

Since the budget for the CDC has grown tremendously over the last decade, through R and D budget processes, how is the incompetence and lack of focus of the CDC of their primary mission interpreted as a partisan issue?

And with all due respect, I am growing tired of your argument that people that disagree with your viewpoint are too narrowminded to "understand" the big picture. That is a copout to properly defending your position.

I think we butt heads so much because you argue for what you feel this country "should" be based upon your beliefs. I make my arguments based upon the realization of what this country really is, and understand the limitations and constraints of budgets, prejudices, bloated and intrusive government, etc. That is two widely differing perspectives, and I am afraid you will perpetually be disappointed in what we can expect our of our involuntary contributions to support the Washington beast.