Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Safe is not the equivalent of risk free" 448 U.S 607 (1980)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-29-09 08:37 PM
Original message
"Safe is not the equivalent of risk free" 448 U.S 607 (1980)
Edited on Tue Dec-29-09 08:39 PM by ddeclue
<rant>

:rant:

In Indus. Union Dept. v. Amer. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607 (1980), the Supreme Court astutely observed that "safe is not the equivalent of risk free". We too often forget that simple but profound truth.

Nothing in life is without risk.

Yes you could get killed by a terrorist attack on your international flight from Europe to Detroit.

Or - you could get killed by semi truck on I75 while returning from your Christmas holiday. I witnessed this accident being cleaned up Sunday night.

Or - you could die of a heart attack, a stroke, cancer, diabetes, kidney failure, H1N1 flu, the regular flu or any number of ways.

In any event none of us leave here alive no matter what we do (rapture rightists excluded).

We all have to die of something. In the Monty Python skit, when you don't have the duck - the grim reaper shoots you instead. As they say on South Park: "They killed Kenny - you bastards!" - we all die of something sooner or later.

I don't hear anybody demanding that we all surrender our right to privacy over the heart attacks caused by too many cheeseburgers and cigarettes.

We (and by this I mean the lame stream media) need to get a grip and find our testicles in our desk drawers and screw them back on.

Whatever happened to living 45 minutes from total nuclear annihilation?

How can some idiot setting fire to his underwear compare to THAT?

I spent the first 23 years of my life with the possibility that it could all be over in 45 minutes.

Nobody tried to take away our civil liberties or strip search us at the airport back then when we faced a real threat.

Now we are being told we should panic. We are giving the terrorists (such as they are) everything they could have dreamed of and more - and they aren't even competent terrorists. They are idiots.

I for one am embarassed of the cowardice of my fellow Americans and particularly embarassed by the cowardice of our corporate media.

I for one will no longer fly if it means the governmnt gets to strip search me - electronically or otherwise - before boarding a flight to Cleveland.

Shame on us! Shame on the media!

It's time to put our Constitution FIRST for a change.

It is NOT Barack Obama's (nor was it George W. Bush's) job to defend the country or me individually.

It is his job to protect and defend the CONSTITUTION.

If you want to put an end to this nonsense - STOP giving these idiots any media coverage whatsoever - if you give them coverage it should be to ridicule their failures, not to hype the fear.

Personally I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

</rant>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC