Comments by "B Bodziak" (@B_Bodziak) on "NewsNation"
channel.
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@twileenlee4843 By looks of things, including the yard and the land, I'm guessing means wasn't an issue. But, I completely understand your message. Whether they did for Ian or not, I don't know, but they used to post local numbers on the news if you needed transportation to a shelter.
The very late evacuation orders and the storm gaining wind speed so quickly is exactly what caused most of the issues with Katrina. After Katrina, I thought 99% of people would evacuate for ANY Cat 4 storm headed towards any US coast, let alone one that was 2 mph shy of a cat 5. People were stranded for days. My company sent chartered 757s to bring people to Atlanta that had been in the Superdome for a week. No running water, hot and humid, no feminine hygiene items -- very soiled clothing. There were all ages from infants on up plus house pets. People looked like they were still in shock, as if they'd just been rescued from a war zone. .
3
-
3
-
I think you're to the country's leaders, atp. You are not alone in your frustrations and your sadness. Both sides of the aisle have to first agree to actually negotiate, and both sides must come to the table WILLING to compromise because taking away all guns is not a viable solution and doing nothing is also not a viable solution. Over 80% of gun owners and an even higher percentage of people who don't own guns agree that someone with a history of violence shouldn't own a gun. So, can we at least require "Violent History Checks" before buying a gun? A bill with nothing else in it other than requiring people to pass a violent history check before a gun purchase would probably pass in Congress. The problem is that Democrats won't propose just a single item like that because they fear if the GOP agrees to pass it, then the GOP won't be willing to discuss additional legislation on gun control. That causes Democrats to propose additional gun control laws that they already know the GOP won't agree to do. BOTH sides must be willing to compromise.
Some of the solutions I've heard from politicians are downright disturbing.
Making teachers carry guns is the most ridiculous "solution" I've heard. Remember the kindergarten teacher who was shot in the Virginia school -- Do they expect her or any other kindergarten teacher to aim and shoot a 6 year old?? I live in a large metropolitan area and at least twice a month, if not twice a week, there's a news story about a teacher being arrested for doing something. I'm not hating on teachers. I used to be one. Just last week a middle school teacher was arrested at his school for drinking in the classroom. He had a soda bottle filled with whiskey and his blood alcohol was twice the legal limit. That's the second time in 3 months that a teacher was arrested for drinking on campus. Last month, a middle school teacher was arrested for placing a hidden video recorder in one of the student restrooms. I remember 3 being arrested as part of a sting operation regarding child pornography. One politician thinks it's a good idea to require all teachers to carry guns on campus, but I sure don't.
Another solution was to require schools to have only one door going in/out. I don't know what he thinks that's going to accomplish, but let's hope there are no fires in the science lab. Then, there's the solution of having an armed officer roaming the halls in every school. Well, the Louisville bank had a "good guy with a gun" posted inside, but that good-guy police officer wasn't able to stop the shooter. In fact, he was shot and killed by the shooter.
Data shows that mass shootings nose-dived shortly after the 1994 bill that banned new purchases of assault rifles. Shortly after the ban was lifted, mass shootings, esp in schools, shot up again. There were over 650 mass shootings in the US just last year. We now have people who have experienced more than one mass shooting. The leading cause of child death in the United States is guns. It's difficult to wrap my brain around the fact that more children are killed by guns than die in auto accidents.
I don't know what the viable solutions are, but I do know "doing nothing" isn't working.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It's difficult to have any solutions when one side has continuously refused to compromise from their position at all. Both sides, first, have to be WILLING to negotiate and WILLING to actually compromise before workable solutions can even be discussed.
We already have hard data that shows the number of mass shootings nose-dived shortly after the ban on assault rifles was put in place and number of mass shootings skyrocketed shortly after the ban was lifted. There's actual evidence to support the statement that banning assault rifles will slash the number of mass shootings, esp in schools. Approximately, 69% of current gun owners support reinstating the assault weapons ban. Over 80% of current gun owners support a "Violent History check" requirement before purchasing a firearm.
That's two things that the overwhelming majority of Americans already support. So, why can't Congress pass them as a start? It's not because of their constituents. It's because the NRA keeps their pockets filled.
As voters, we are no longer the constituents of our country's political leaders. Corporations have become our leaders' constituents. Corporate donors have controlled a lot of legislation (or the absence of it) for a century, but Citizens United kicked it into high gear. Every time there's a news story posted online about another mass shooting, maybe people should repeatedly post a list of politicians who've accepted NRA money and how much. Perhaps, voters who are tired and sad and angry from mass shooting overload will see one of their senators accepted $1.4 million last year from the NRA and will re-evaluate who they'll support on the next ballot. If it wasn't for NRA money in the pockets of politicians, we wouldn't be the world champ of mass shootings and the #1 cause of child deaths wouldn't be guns.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Brandon Borradaile He has been re-elected a number of times, and I am almost certain he was representing Paul in the boating case. Because of the widespread coverage of the two murders case, it may affect his next re-election if he chooses not to retire. Having a state senator as your legal counsel just shows the connections the Murdaughs have (had?) in the state. However, I think the senator and Alex are also close friends. That said, the senator never showed much passion when talking to reporters about Alex's innocence. Unless you've lived in somewhat rural county in a southern state, it can be difficult to wrap your head around how things work in the world of "good 'ol boys". I think it's prevalent in the southern states that were part of the original 13 colonies. Many of these families had plantations or bought property for a bargain not long after emancipation. Every county has 1 or 2 wealthy families that have been there for generations, and they all have "family businesses" that have been passed down to each subsequent generation. From my observations, the family business involves either a successful law practice, car dealerships, a realty company and/or a funeral home. With the exception of car dealerships, there is a need/demand for those services in every county/area, and the patriarch of the original biz realized this. If you ask anyone who has lived in a rural southern county if there is a family or two that is the equivalent of Murdaughs, they won't have to think long about the response.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@CadaverQT If you live on a barrier island and there's an evacuation order you NEED to heed it. There may be hurricanes every year, but it's not as though people in a specific area go under an evacuation order for every hurricane which is what you implied. Once every 6-9 yrs, maybe. Not annually. Buildings are opened and set up specifically to accommodate and provide a sleeping area, meals and usually electricity for those who don't want to go hundreds of miles away (including pets). If you're an adult, fine. Do whatever you like, but be prepared to be stranded if you need a first responder. However, if you have children or are caring for elderly family members, it's a different story.
I sense a lot of people on this thread are those that have laughed at others in the past for evacuating and returning to an intact home. I don't understand this macho attitude of not evacuating for a hurricane. They don't pass out ribbons for it. People who are defending parents not evacuating their children must have chosen to be idiots in the past by not evacuating their own children and instead of admitting that you left your children in possible harm's way, you're finding every excuse to justify your actions, err, the actions of the mother's in the video.
2
-
@annieoops6243 Every Florida city/county has govt buildings that are designated as Hurricane shelters. The logistics are planned out years in advance. The cost is included in the budgets of the state on down. When a storm forms off the coast of Africa, the later preparations are started (Getting food items, toiletries, etc. Assigning work details, often separating employees into teams assigned with specific tasks). As the storm gets closer and the danger zones are determined, including a large buffer to account for directional shifts, people start going through the actual motions of delivery cots from a warehouse or bringing them up from a storage facility, food is moved, generators checked, etc. These buildings are open for all residents and there are some that accomodate pets, as well. They are there because the state knows many people don't have means to evacuate 100-200 milrs away. These are not regular shelters. They are govt buildings that are used for hurrican evacuations. Places like schools, indoor sporting arenas, etc.tgat have structures meeting hurricane resistant requirements (usually a cat 4) out of flood zones. The label "shelter" may be a bit misleading. If a family does not have transportation, the city will arrange transportation to get you there. There's no charge and you'll be safe, dry, fed and have electricity and bathroom facilities. Hell, you may even save a few dollars being there. There's no worry about finding a gas station with gas, waiting hours in traffic, car issues on the road, where to go and obviously no financial burdens. Our tax dollars pay for this. If you have children, they'll likely have other children to play with AND if the destruction is severe as with Ian, your family will already have a secure place to stay for the time being -- unlike those who are returning from evacuating or those who stayed but no longer have a home. I don't know why this is not everyone's first option. You're not a great distance from your home and can east return without driving for hours in backed up traffic. If your home is damaged, your can likely be there immediately after the storm to secured your property.
The financial strain of evacuating is an unneeded stress that is easily sorted out.
2