• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

GOP Congressman clueless about Surgeon General

fishbob said:
1 person, 1 vote.
Not 1 whacktard NRA president speaking for millions, not a few NRA lobbyists speaking for millions.
Click to expand...
How many people belong to Bloomberg's groups or the Brady Campaign?
 
WildCat said:
I see, you want government by the people, for the people, and of the people, but not people who are members of the NRA or support gun rights.
Click to expand...
The NRA has every right to lobby on behalf of their interests. Legislators have every right to kowtow to the NRA.
 
newyorkguy said:
After a series of articles finding that increased prevalence of guns lead to increased incidents of gun violence
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Well there's an easily tested claim! If I were to, say, collect data on the prevalence of gun ownership by county in Illinois I could then predict how they would rank in terms of gun violence if this statement is correct, yes?
 
marplots said:
If Senate confirmation is going to mean anything in our system, then sometimes they aren't going to rubber-stamp whomever the President nominates. It's in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
I'm not asking for a rubber stamp of anything. The OP is about A.) the idiocy of Chaffetz. B.) What I think is a mistake of legislators, Reid included, to not allow a vote to confirm the nominee.

I will concede that a more palpable choice could be found except that, IMO, that GOP has made clear they don't want Obama to get credit for anything and they have made clear, again IMO, that they will not to work with Obama and instead they want to slow up his appointments as much as possible. The Democrats have done the same.

  • I accept political realities.
  • I don't claim that the partisan BS is one sided.
  • It would be good for the nation if someone would have a back bone and principle and get us past this stonewaling.
  • It won't get better when there is a GOP president and democratic congress.
  • Chaffetz is a supreme idiot.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
I'm not asking for a rubber stamp of anything. The OP is about A.) the idiocy of Chaffetz. B.) What I think is a mistake of legislators, Reid included, to not allow a vote to confirm the nominee.

I will concede that a more palpable choice could be found except that GOP has really decided not to work with Obama to slow up his appointments as much as possible. The Democrats have done the same.

  • I accept political realities.
  • I don't claim that the partisan BS is one sided.
  • It would be good for the nation if someone would have a back bone and principle and get us past this stonewaling.
  • It won't get better when there is a GOP president and democratic congress.
  • Chaffetz is a supreme idiot.
Click to expand...
Why not nominate a SG who avoids pursuing political issues under the guise of health care?
 
casebro said:
If so many of the public are anti-gun, how come so few anti-gun laws have been voted in by direct vote of that non-existant majority?

But back on the OP's actual subject, the CDC is being run by some Temporary Surgeon General. I don't know his name, but somebody is in charge.
Click to expand...
If Chaffetz was referring to the acting attorney general then I will apologize for my assertion.
 
fishbob said:
1 person, 1 vote.
Not 1 whacktard NRA president speaking for millions, not a few NRA lobbyists speaking for millions.
Click to expand...

Or George Soros either?

At least the NRA has millions of voters behind it.
 
tyr_13 said:
Hell no. Not this one at least.
Click to expand...

But they have a role in the national discussions and policies, you and those like do have no voice politically. So the effect is that they do speak for you, unless you think the gun control people speak for you.

Just because you don't like it and because they disagree with you doesn't make it not true.
 
ponderingturtle said:
But they have a role in the national discussions and policies, you and those like do have no voice politically. So the effect is that they do speak for you, unless you think the gun control people speak for you.

Just because you don't like it and because they disagree with you doesn't make it not true.
Click to expand...

I think the gun control people speak for me more than the NRA. They all have a role in the national discussions and policies. The NRA likes to try to speak for all gun owners, or at least pretend they do, but their choices are at odds with the opinion of most of their members, let alone most gun owners. The best way I can think of to combat their influences is to point out that they do not, in fact, speak for me even if they say they do and want to.

Of course many of the gun control groups do the same thing with those who advocate for more or different gun control measures (like me again!). They claim and try to speak for 'those for gun control', but they almost all keep making choices at odds with their members, the general public, and in my opinion what is good for advancing the issue.

So while they (the control groups and the NRA) claim and try to speak for me, and many people believe that they do, the fact is they do not. Sadly that is not as important right now as the fact that many people do believe it, so in effect they do get the influence as if they did.

It's...confusing.
 
WildCat said:
Huh? The SG decides if it's an issue they're going to get involved in, and it's clear this guy would make it an issue. So if you think the SG should not be involved in this issue then you should oppose his nomination.
Click to expand...


Sorry I missed this earlier.

The type of influence the Surgeon General would actually have isn't completely in the control of the Surgeon General. The position limits a lot of what they could do. The things that they could, and if not stopped it seems would, do I actually support. I want more and better data on gun deaths, ways to mitigate the effects, and what are the best practices. Those are things the CDC could do, even if I wish they would spend that time and capital on alcohol. The things that the Surgeon General nominee might want to do that I'd oppose aren't actually in the power of that position, and therefore I'm unconcerned with that desire.
 
marplots said:
If Senate confirmation is going to mean anything in our system, then sometimes they aren't going to rubber-stamp whomever the President nominates. It's in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

If Senate confirmation is going to mean anything, they need to actually vote on all nominations in a timely manner.
 
tyr_13 said:
I think the gun control people speak for me more than the NRA. They all have a role in the national discussions and policies. The NRA likes to try to speak for all gun owners, or at least pretend they do, but their choices are at odds with the opinion of most of their members, let alone most gun owners. The best way I can think of to combat their influences is to point out that they do not, in fact, speak for me even if they say they do and want to.

Of course many of the gun control groups do the same thing with those who advocate for more or different gun control measures (like me again!). They claim and try to speak for 'those for gun control', but they almost all keep making choices at odds with their members, the general public, and in my opinion what is good for advancing the issue.

So while they (the control groups and the NRA) claim and try to speak for me, and many people believe that they do, the fact is they do not. Sadly that is not as important right now as the fact that many people do believe it, so in effect they do get the influence as if they did.

It's...confusing.
Click to expand...

Look at the effect, when a politician does not obey them then they put out lots of propaganda that they are anti gun, regardless of what most gun owners would think of the bills if they heard about it(they are not exactly going to be honest about it are they?).

That is why I think it is accurate to say that they are the de facto voice of gun owners in this country. Just because you and I don't like that doesn't mean it isn't true.
 
WildCat said:
He's just a man with an opinion, and the pro-gun Senate contingent wants to keep it that way.
Click to expand...

Yea, make sure there are never studies and evidence, they might show the wrong thing. Then it will be harder to balance the facts with the truth.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Yea, make sure there are never studies and evidence, they might show the wrong thing. Then it will be harder to balance the facts with the truth.
Click to expand...
Why is this the purview of the SG? Is there a vaccine or something that can cure street gang violence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom