RockDaHouse85's comment history

RockDaHouse85 said...

Rickaroo: Nail. Head. Bam. The war on terror is a joke because we're trying to counter terror with paranoia; in other words, we're fighting fear with fear. The only thing we're doing is making even more fear. Jimmy Gaines appears to be an unfortunate casualty, not just of his own poor word choices, but of a system afraid of its own shadow. Common sense has gone the way of our civil liberties: right down the toilet.

February 5, 2014 at 10:28 p.m.
RockDaHouse85 said...

Ha! You're full of it, too. Don't think that the economic crisis hasn't hit the medical profession. Other fields may be suffering to a greater degree, but it's simply not true that if you're a nurse you can just up and leave and get yourself another job.

May 22, 2010 at 1:37 a.m.
RockDaHouse85 said...

Sorry, tifosi, but I'm with purplecloud on this one. My wife works for Erlanger, and I hear the stories about how they treat employees. Nurses in this area get paid crap, and to make it worse, last year Brexler sent out an email bragging about how much budget surplus the hospital had. But instead of sharing that prosperity with his employees, he's going to build a wellness center for VW. Charming. This past holiday Erlanger employees didn't get raises or even bonuses (at least in my wife's department). The department manager where my wife works is overloading the nurses with too many patients because that way, the department can run under budget. They've changed the rules about how many patients a nurse can care for, so now the nurses are overworked and the patients are being put at risk because of it. Erlanger abuses its employees in a way befitting the Middle Ages; nurses are apparently like serfs to the hospital brass. All they care about is making money. It sickens me.

May 21, 2010 at 6:44 p.m.
RockDaHouse85 said...

In that case, Sailorman, my comments weren't directed at you. I was addressing those who were claiming that gun-carrying citizens could have somehow averted the violence in Coolidge Park. I wasn't assuming anything about gun owners in general. There are plenty of gun owners with common sense and good judgment. I have no beef with them.

My point about the 9/11 planes is that if guns were allowed on aircraft, it would be easier for terrorists to get them on board. Saying that a .45 beats a boxcutter is a little ridiculous. How could we guarantee that only law-abiding citizens with no malicious intent would carry their guns on the plane?

I agree with the chief's position. If guns were allowed in Coolidge Park, judging by some of these comments there would have been people who would have pulled them out with the intent to use them. There is no way that reaction would have lessened the violence.

By the way, I agree with you that the right response is to run fast. Drawing your weapon doesn't make you a hero, it makes you a target--for both the police and the criminals.

March 31, 2010 at 7:45 p.m.
RockDaHouse85 said...

Wow, MountainJoe, really? Do you really think that if guns were allowed on planes, the terrorists wouldn't have found a way to get their own guns on the plane? And just what do you think would have happened to the plane and its passengers if people had starting spraying .45s at thin aircraft metal? Your argument is astounding in its lack of perspective.

For those of you who are arguing that permit holders save lives, give me one example where a licensed gun carrier saved a person's life from a shooter in a crowded public place (I'm not saying there aren't any, but I'm unaware of them). moonpie got it right. If thugs start shooting, and then licensed gun carriers start shooting back, how do the police know who's the good guy and who's the bad guy? I also second SeaSmokie59er: Anyone who discharges a weapon into a crowd of people is a nitwit. When thugs start shooting in a crowded public place, whipping out your guns and firing back is guaranteed to produce more chaos and bloodshed. Escalating the violence will not solve the problem.

March 31, 2010 at 6:55 p.m.
RockDaHouse85 said...

Don't worry, Lightnup. If the kids don't attend classes, their grades suffer as a result, and then they drop out, they'll never graduate, thus they won't have to worry about getting a job, and they can still live in their parents' basement till they're 35.

October 6, 2009 at 1:19 a.m.
RockDaHouse85 said...

bell_fighter, I'm guessing you are referring to that case where the man was shot multiple times by the police. But that one case does not mean that every police shooting is automatically an unjustified overreaction. Furthermore, what would you do if you were a police officer being shot at? Would you say, "Hey guys, no one shoot back. We need to call for a negotiator." Negotiators have their place, but once shots are being fired, all bets are off. I still maintain that if these people were obeying the law, most likely they would not have been shot at by the police. (Yes, I am aware that there are unjustified police shootings; I am merely arguing that it is a tough call to make and in some cases, police shootings are justified.) You yourself admitted that a gun was involved in some of the cases, but you say how they were being handled is the question. Well, here's my question: did those people who possessed firearms possess them legally or illegally?

October 5, 2009 at 11:59 p.m.
RockDaHouse85 said...

I personally don't understand why there is so much angst about the shootings mentioned above. In all of the cases an individual was threatening the safety of the police officers, and in many of the cases the suspect was brandishing a firearm or even shooting at police. What are the officers supposed to do? Stand there while they're being shot at and ask nicely for the suspect to put down the gun? TO be fair, there are cases where the police have overreacted and shot someone when they probably didn't need to, and there are even cases where they have shot an innocent civilian. But we the citizens need to keep in mind that they work in a very stressful, dangerous occupation. They put their lives on the line in order to keep us safe. They are not perfect, but why should we expect them to react any differently than they did when their lives are in danger? Cops get shot and killed too. Do we go after the criminals who killed them and demand justice the same way we do when a cop shoots and kills someone? To me the bottom line is this: if you are a law-abiding citizen, you don't have to worry too much about being shot by the police. If, however, you are a lawbreaker, then you should expect the police to do their job and arrest you. If you point guns at them and start shooting, they will shoot back. It's very simple. From what I can tell by reading the above descriptions of the shootings, none of these people would have been in danger of being shot by the police if they had been obeying the law. I'm in favor of investigating police shootings to make sure the police were justified in their actions, but I think we need to stop defending criminals for their actions.

October 4, 2009 at 1:06 p.m.
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.