Bush has gone totally daft...

[j2k4]

...if he thinks the feds should fund a rebuild of New Orleans.

The private sector is perfectly capable, and too smart to do it the wrong way, like the government would.

Let Mother Nature reclaim what is rightfully hers.

[clocker]

...if he thinks the feds should fund a rebuild of New Orleans.


But...but...

How will Halliburton survive?

The Cheney great-grandchildren might have to work, fer crissakes.

[Rat Faced]

Gone? :blink:

[j2k4]

...if he thinks the feds should fund a rebuild of New Orleans.


But...but...

How will Halliburton survive?

The Cheney great-grandchildren might have to work, fer crissakes.

Looky who's here! :)

I don't follow the Halliburton reference...is he going to turn Nawlans into an oil rig or something?

[Rat Faced]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Companies with ties to the Bush White House and the former head of FEMA are clinching some of the administration's first disaster relief and reconstruction contracts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

At least two major corporate clients of lobbyist Joe Allbaugh, President Bush's former campaign manager and a former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, have already been tapped to start recovery work along the battered Gulf Coast.

One is Shaw Group Inc. and the other is Halliburton Co. subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root. Vice President Dick Cheney is a former head of Halliburton.

Bechtel National Inc., a unit of San Francisco-based Bechtel Corp., has also been selected by FEMA to provide short-term housing for people displaced by the hurricane. Bush named Bechtel's CEO to his Export Council and put the former CEO of Bechtel Energy in charge of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

Experts say it has been common practice in both Republican and Democratic administrations for policy makers to take lobbying jobs once they leave office, and many of the same companies seeking contracts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina have already received billions of dollars for work in Iraq.

Halliburton alone has earned more than $9 billion. Pentagon audits released by Democrats in June showed $1.03 billion in "questioned" costs and $422 million in "unsupported" costs for Halliburton's work in Iraq.

Watchdog groups take notice
But the web of Bush administration connections is attracting renewed attention from watchdog groups in the post-Katrina reconstruction rush. Congress has already appropriated more than $60 billion in emergency funding as a down payment on recovery efforts projected to cost well over $100 billion.

"The government has got to stop stacking senior positions with people who are repeatedly cashing in on the public trust in order to further private commercial interests," said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight.

Bush appointees at Halliburton
Allbaugh formally registered as a lobbyist for Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root in February.

In lobbying disclosure forms filed with the Senate, Allbaugh said his goal was to "educate the congressional and executive branch on defense, disaster relief and homeland security issues affecting Kellogg Brown and Root."

Melissa Norcross, a Halliburton spokeswoman, said Allbaugh has not, since he was hired, "consulted on any specific contracts that the company is considering pursuing, nor has he been tasked by the company with any lobbying responsibilities."

Allbaugh is also a friend of Michael Brown, director of FEMA who was removed as head of Katrina disaster relief and sent back to Washington amid allegations he had padded his resume -- which he denies.

A few months after Allbaugh was hired by Halliburton, the company retained another high-level Bush appointee, Kirk Van Tine.

Van Tine registered as a lobbyist for Halliburton six months after resigning as deputy transportation secretary, a position he held from December 2003 to December 2004.

On Friday, Kellogg Brown & Root received $29.8 million in Pentagon contracts to begin rebuilding Navy bases in Louisiana and Mississippi. Norcross said the work was covered under a contract that the company negotiated before Allbaugh was hired.

Cheney's relationship with Halliburton
Halliburton continues to be a source of income for Cheney, who served as its chief executive officer from 1995 until 2000 when he joined the Republican ticket for the White House. According to tax filings released in April, Cheney's income included $194,852 in deferred pay from the company, which has also won billion-dollar government contracts in Iraq.

Cheney's office said the amount of deferred compensation is fixed and is not affected by Halliburton's current economic performance or earnings.

Allbaugh's other major client, Baton Rouge-based Shaw Group, has updated its Web site to say: "Hurricane Recovery Projects -- Apply Here!"

Shaw said on Thursday it has received a $100 million emergency FEMA contract for housing management and construction. Shaw also clinched a $100 million order on Friday from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Shaw Group spokesman Chris Sammons said Allbaugh was providing the company with "general consulting on business matters," and would not say whether he played a direct role in any of the Katrina deals. "We don't comment on specific consulting activities," he said.

[j2k4]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Companies with ties to the Bush White House and the former head of FEMA are clinching some of the administration's first disaster relief and reconstruction contracts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

At least two major corporate clients of lobbyist Joe Allbaugh, President Bush's former campaign manager and a former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, have already been tapped to start recovery work along the battered Gulf Coast.

One is Shaw Group Inc. and the other is Halliburton Co. subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root. Vice President Dick Cheney is a former head of Halliburton.

Bechtel National Inc., a unit of San Francisco-based Bechtel Corp., has also been selected by FEMA to provide short-term housing for people displaced by the hurricane. Bush named Bechtel's CEO to his Export Council and put the former CEO of Bechtel Energy in charge of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

Experts say it has been common practice in both Republican and Democratic administrations for policy makers to take lobbying jobs once they leave office, and many of the same companies seeking contracts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina have already received billions of dollars for work in Iraq.

Halliburton alone has earned more than $9 billion. Pentagon audits released by Democrats in June showed $1.03 billion in "questioned" costs and $422 million in "unsupported" costs for Halliburton's work in Iraq.

Watchdog groups take notice
But the web of Bush administration connections is attracting renewed attention from watchdog groups in the post-Katrina reconstruction rush. Congress has already appropriated more than $60 billion in emergency funding as a down payment on recovery efforts projected to cost well over $100 billion.

"The government has got to stop stacking senior positions with people who are repeatedly cashing in on the public trust in order to further private commercial interests," said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight.

Bush appointees at Halliburton
Allbaugh formally registered as a lobbyist for Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root in February.

In lobbying disclosure forms filed with the Senate, Allbaugh said his goal was to "educate the congressional and executive branch on defense, disaster relief and homeland security issues affecting Kellogg Brown and Root."

Melissa Norcross, a Halliburton spokeswoman, said Allbaugh has not, since he was hired, "consulted on any specific contracts that the company is considering pursuing, nor has he been tasked by the company with any lobbying responsibilities."

Allbaugh is also a friend of Michael Brown, director of FEMA who was removed as head of Katrina disaster relief and sent back to Washington amid allegations he had padded his resume -- which he denies.

A few months after Allbaugh was hired by Halliburton, the company retained another high-level Bush appointee, Kirk Van Tine.

Van Tine registered as a lobbyist for Halliburton six months after resigning as deputy transportation secretary, a position he held from December 2003 to December 2004.

On Friday, Kellogg Brown & Root received $29.8 million in Pentagon contracts to begin rebuilding Navy bases in Louisiana and Mississippi. Norcross said the work was covered under a contract that the company negotiated before Allbaugh was hired.

Cheney's relationship with Halliburton
Halliburton continues to be a source of income for Cheney, who served as its chief executive officer from 1995 until 2000 when he joined the Republican ticket for the White House. According to tax filings released in April, Cheney's income included $194,852 in deferred pay from the company, which has also won billion-dollar government contracts in Iraq.

Cheney's office said the amount of deferred compensation is fixed and is not affected by Halliburton's current economic performance or earnings.

Allbaugh's other major client, Baton Rouge-based Shaw Group, has updated its Web site to say: "Hurricane Recovery Projects -- Apply Here!"

Shaw said on Thursday it has received a $100 million emergency FEMA contract for housing management and construction. Shaw also clinched a $100 million order on Friday from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Shaw Group spokesman Chris Sammons said Allbaugh was providing the company with "general consulting on business matters," and would not say whether he played a direct role in any of the Katrina deals. "We don't comment on specific consulting activities," he said.

You are absolutely right.

We should conduct a prolonged bidding process to ensure fairness; to hell with anyone who awaits genuine and timely action.

[Santa]

who do go to when you have problems?

[j2k4]

who do go to when you have problems?

Rat wants you to go to a bidding bizarre and stand in line, apparently. :P

[3RA1N1AC]

We should conduct a prolonged bidding process to ensure fairness; to hell with anyone who awaits genuine and timely action.
ah, that timeless dilemma which has plagued politicians ever since ye olden greco-roman dayes and such:

"either halliburton or death."

it is a difficult question, indeed, yet a choice must be made between the two. one can't help but wonder what they did before the discovery of halliburton. died, probably!

[clocker]

We should conduct a prolonged bidding process to ensure fairness; to hell with anyone who awaits genuine and timely action.
Exactly right.
With Halliburton already on speed dial, the extra 20 seconds a phone call to another company might take would be foolhardy and callous.

Two tangental musings...
It seems odd that as military actions and disaster relief efforts have strained our military/civilian infrastructure's ability to respond, Halliburton seems to be able to magically expand and compete (well, not actually compete per se, more like show up and collect the trophies...) for the cleanup/support duties.

Does the term "appearance of impropriety" mean anything anymore?

[tracydani]

This kind of stuff happens at lower levels too. I work for the military and the highest 2 ranking civilians in my area consitantly give contracts to their own family and friends companies.

It really is sad to see how much money is wasted even at these lower levels of government, but who can blame them when the executive levels do this as a rule?

What's even sadder is that with the current drawdowns we have people losing jobs because we cannot afford to pay them due to smaller customer bases yet we can afford to buy new equipment that is not needed simply because if we do not spend the money allocated we will not get it next year.

[vidcc]

I do find it odd that there is a group of people in the USA that support wholeheartedly the idea that we should be paying to build Iraq and indeed it is anti American to question this, yet the same people believe it wrong to spend one dime on our own people.

[Everose]

I don't know about anyone else, Vidcc....but I cannot equate the two like that.

As far as spending federal tax money on rebuilding areas that were damaged/wiped out from Hurricanes? I have no problem with it if they follow their local floodplain management ordinances. This is a big 'if'. ;)

[j2k4]

Does the term "appearance of impropriety" mean anything anymore?

I've always preferred that guilt be assigned over "actual" impropriety, myself...leave the job of determining same to a genuine investigatory effort, rather than a bunch of silly, know-nothing citizens panting over incomplete and sensationalistic media reportage. ;)

[j2k4]

I do find it odd that there is a group of people in the USA that support wholeheartedly the idea that we should be paying to build Iraq and indeed it is anti American to question this, yet the same people believe it wrong to spend one dime on our own people.

I don't know any people like that... :huh:

[vidcc]

I don't know about anyone else, Vidcc....but I cannot equate the two like that.

As far as spending federal tax money on rebuilding areas that were damaged/wiped out from Hurricanes? I have no problem with it if they follow their local floodplain management ordinances. This is a big 'if'. ;)

Of course there has to be accountability. Not just that the money is going where it is supposed to but also that we get value for that money. I don't believe in tax and spend, I believe in spending tax wisely. I certainly oppose the current republican mantra of borrow and spend.
I expect a proper job to be done and not just rebuild to have it destroyed by the next storm. I also believe that just because a certain amount has been set aside for the task it doesn't mean that amount has to be spent. I don't believe we should be relieving insurance companies of their liability either.

Any houses built with our tax dollars should remain the property of the government and either rented out or sold at full market value so we can recoup the money spent. I do not believe that we should build homes and hand them over as a gift.

[JPaul]

"Any houses built with our tax dollars should remain the property of the government and either rented out or sold at full market value so we can recoup the money spent. I do not believe that we should build homes and hand them over as a gift."

So you think your Government should rebuild the city, but charge the victims for their new homes.

[j2k4]

"Any houses built with our tax dollars should remain the property of the government and either rented out or sold at full market value so we can recoup the money spent. I do not believe that we should build homes and hand them over as a gift."

So you think your Government should rebuild the city, but charge the victims for their new homes.

Looks like an adequate summary to me.

I don't see the special difficulties presented by the poor displaced blacks addressed here, though... :huh:

[JPaul]

"Any houses built with our tax dollars should remain the property of the government and either rented out or sold at full market value so we can recoup the money spent. I do not believe that we should build homes and hand them over as a gift."

So you think your Government should rebuild the city, but charge the victims for their new homes.

Looks like an adequate summary to me.

I don't see the special difficulties presented by the poor displaced blacks addressed here, though... :huh:
It's not really the Government rebuilding the city, if they actually charge the people for it. They would just be the main contractor.

If that's the case then why would the federal Government be involved at all, other than to supply the initial building costs (which would effectively be loans).

Perhaps I miss the point.

Is your "foreign aid" policy similar to this. We'll send you a few million pounds worth of help .... and an invoice.

[j2k4]

It is the Federal Government as General Contractor.

The American taxpayer is merely the reluctant client, and the citizens of the afflicted area the soon-to-be long-suffering beneficiaries.

Give me a private contractor any fucking day...

[vidcc]

"Any houses built with our tax dollars should remain the property of the government and either rented out or sold at full market value so we can recoup the money spent. I do not believe that we should build homes and hand them over as a gift."

So you think your Government should rebuild the city, but charge the victims for their new homes.
So you think that they should live there for free?

A city isn't just homes. The feds should be rebuilding the infrastructure so that it is safe to habit. Some of the houses destroyed may have been public housing, do you think the previous tenants should be rent free from now on?
All other houses were privately owned, this includes the privately rented houses. Insurance companies carry the responsibility to rebuild these even though they are trying to worm out. Anyone without insurance that has their property rebuilt by the government should either pay rent (at a reasonable rate) or pay for the rebuild (over a period of time like a loan) That said it would be fair to just charge the rebuild cost and not market value as I said before as it was government failing that left the flood defences so weak.
If you knowingly settle in a place that has a certainty of damage then you have to take responsibility for that choice.


my social ethic (generally) is that we help the needy to help themselves, not let them be parasites. There are those that can't help themselves and I believe we have a duty to look after them.

[Rat Faced]

who do go to when you have problems?

Rat wants you to go to a bidding bizarre and stand in line, apparently. :P

No, i gave you a reference to stop your confusion over the Haliburton reference supplied by Clocker.

However, when a company is being investigated for stealing $billions from the Taxpayer, then it is inappropriate to keep hiring them with tax dollars.

I would have thought your own Conservative views would have supported my more Liberal ones on something like that :P

[j2k4]

my social ethic (generally) is that we help the needy to help themselves, not let them be parasites. There are those that can't help themselves and I believe we have a duty to look after them.

Finally-

Evidence my presence here is having an effect, muted though it may be... :D

[JPaul]

It is the Federal Government as General Contractor.

The American taxpayer is merely the reluctant client, and the citizens of the afflicted area the soon-to-be long-suffering beneficiaries.

Give me a private contractor any fucking day...
I would change that slightly.

The citizens would be clients, rather than beneficiaries, if they are having to pay for whatever they get. (Or is that just vid's preference).

The American taxpayer would be the "backer" supplying the funds for the project.

I have to say tho', I find the idea of re-building the city bizarre. FFS people it's a dangerous place, build somewhere else .... on higher ground.

[vidcc]

my social ethic (generally) is that we help the needy to help themselves, not let them be parasites. There are those that can't help themselves and I believe we have a duty to look after them.

Finally-

Evidence my presence here is having an effect, muted though it may be... :D
you have not had any effect on my social ethics..... perhaps my post has changed your mistaken view of what my social ethics are.

[JPaul]

"Any houses built with our tax dollars should remain the property of the government and either rented out or sold at full market value so we can recoup the money spent. I do not believe that we should build homes and hand them over as a gift."

So you think your Government should rebuild the city, but charge the victims for their new homes.
So you think that they should live there for free?

A city isn't just homes. The feds should be rebuilding the infrastructure so that it is safe to habit. Some of the houses destroyed may have been public housing, do you think the previous tenants should be rent free from now on?
All other houses were privately owned, this includes the privately rented houses. Insurance companies carry the responsibility to rebuild these even though they are trying to worm out. Anyone without insurance that has their property rebuilt by the government should either pay rent (at a reasonable rate) or pay for the rebuild (over a period of time like a loan) That said it would be fair to just charge the rebuild cost and not market value as I said before as it was government failing that left the flood defences so weak.
If you knowingly settle in a place that has a certainty of damage then you have to take responsibility for that choice.


my social ethic (generally) is that we help the needy to help themselves, not let them be parasites. There are those that can't help themselves and I believe we have a duty to look after them.

If people were paying rent before then they would continue to pay rent, why would it become free when the house is re-built. That makes no sense.

Do you think that, if you help people in a foreign country to rebuild their homes after a natural disaster, then that "aid" should be repaid, by the individuals who got their home rebuilt.

I am genuinely interested, as I find it a strange position to take.

[Rat Faced]

Tsk...

The Foreign Government is supposed to buy the equivalent value of Arms from the US, for which a federal loan will be arranged... surely you jest in your question here. :P

[vidcc]

If people were paying rent before then they would continue to pay rent, why would it become free when the house is re-built. That makes no sense.


your original question wasn't limited to rental homes. I covered rental and private in the answer.

Do you think that, if you help people in a foreign country to rebuild their homes after a natural disaster, then that "aid" should be repaid, by the individuals who got their home rebuilt.


Any. Recompense be it monetary, trade, services or good will is between the government of that land and the government of the land providing the help.

[JPaul]

Do you think that, if you help people in a foreign country to rebuild their homes after a natural disaster, then that "aid" should be repaid, by the individuals who got their home rebuilt.


Any. Recompense be it monetary, trade, services or good will is between the government of that land and the government of the land providing the help.
Sorry I don't understand you answer.

Should "aid" payments be treated as loans between your country and the recipient country.

[vidcc]

Any. Recompense be it monetary, trade, services or good will is between the government of that land and the government of the land providing the help.
Sorry I don't understand you answer.

Should "aid" payments be treated as loans between your country and the recipient country.
That is up to the two governments concerned as is the method of repayment (if any). I don't see why it should automatically be treated as a gift nor do I see why it it should automatically be treated as a loan.
Humanitarian emergency aid should never have strings attached and it would be pretty low to demand anything in return.

[JPaul]

Sorry I don't understand you answer.

Should "aid" payments be treated as loans between your country and the recipient country.
That is up to the two governments concerned as is the method of repayment (if any). I don't see why it should automatically be treated as a gift nor do I see why it it should automatically be treated as a loan.
Humanitarian emergency aid should never have strings attached and it would be pretty low to demand anything in return.
So what of a natural disaster, in a wealthy country. They would need the "aid" quickly, but would be able to repay it in due course.

[Rat Faced]

Humanitarian Aid should not, even if to a rich country, have strings attached.

[vidcc]

That is up to the two governments concerned as is the method of repayment (if any). I don't see why it should automatically be treated as a gift nor do I see why it it should automatically be treated as a loan.
Humanitarian emergency aid should never have strings attached and it would be pretty low to demand anything in return.
So what of a natural disaster, in a wealthy country. They would need the "aid" quickly, but would be able to repay it in due course.

see red above

[JPaul]

Humanitarian Aid should not, even if to a rich country, have strings attached.
I agree, any "aid" should be just that.

[JPaul]

So what of a natural disaster, in a wealthy country. They would need the "aid" quickly, but would be able to repay it in due course.

see red above
Yes but I asked you re a specific scenario, as opposed to your nebulous position.

Let me make it specific, should the "aid" given to the USA after the catastrophe in New Orleans be re-paid by your Government. Or should it be treated as a gift, as it was intended.

[vidcc]

see red above
Yes but I asked you re a specific scenario, as opposed to your nebulous position.

Let me make it specific, should the "aid" given to the USA after the catastrophe in New Orleans be re-paid by your Government. Or should it be treated as a gift, as it was intended.
My personal viewpoint being a proud person is that as we have the ability to pay back we should. this doesn't mean that the country that gave the gift has to accept. As I posted it doesn't have to be monetary. It may be that next week the UK is hit by a catastrophe and we can provide aid and if this happened I would not expect it to be repaid even though you possibly could. It's a two way street.

[Rat Faced]

And yet many cultures would take the returning of a gift as an insult.. :rolleyes:

[vidcc]

And yet many cultures would take the returning of a gift as an insult.. :rolleyes: and?

[Rat Faced]

Just that countries and people should be careful in returning gifts..

Especially those that are already unpopular atm..

The Diplomatic thing to do would be to give Aid to those countries, that just so happens to be the same amount :P

[JPaul]

Yes but I asked you re a specific scenario, as opposed to your nebulous position.

Let me make it specific, should the "aid" given to the USA after the catastrophe in New Orleans be re-paid by your Government. Or should it be treated as a gift, as it was intended.
My personal viewpoint being a proud person is that as we have the ability to pay back we should. this doesn't mean that the country that gave the gift has to accept. As I posted it doesn't have to be monetary. It may be that next week the UK is hit by a catastrophe and we can provide aid and if this happened I would not expect it to be repaid even though you possibly could. It's a two way street.
It's always monetary, everything has to be paid for one way or another. So all "aid" has a cost to the people supplying it.

I think everyone here realises that "aid" does not go by way of cash. It may be food, medicines, expertise. However it is always reported as a monetary value. e.g. Country X sent £100,000 in aid to the USA does not mean they actually sent the cash.

I just find your position with regard to your fellow citizens strange. If a couple owned their house in New Orleans and had no mortgage on it, then you are willing to rebuild it for them, then rent it to them or have them pay for it. Whereas I suspect that others may see it as a national disaster, which you should all sort out together. By putting people back in the position they were before it happened. Not better off, just back where they were before it happened.

Your position is surprisingly lacking in compassion for your fellow citizens.

[vidcc]

Just that countries and people should be careful in returning gifts..

Especially those that are already unpopular atm..

The Diplomatic thing to do would be to give Aid to those countries, that just so happens to be the same amount :P
I am confused as to how this adds or subtracts from what i said (assuming it is aimed at me).... if it is not aimed at me please ignore this :unsure:

[clocker]

Rat wants you to go to a bidding bizarre and stand in line, apparently. :P

No, i gave you a reference to stop your confusion over the Haliburton reference supplied by Clocker.

However, when a company is being investigated for stealing $billions from the Taxpayer, then it is inappropriate to keep hiring them with tax dollars.

Thanks RF but I'm certain that j2 got the reference at once.

I've always preferred that guilt be assigned over "actual" impropriety, myself...leave the job of determining same to a genuine investigatory effort, rather than a bunch of silly, know-nothing citizens panting over incomplete and sensationalistic media reportage.
Apparently, avoiding the "appearance of impropriety", long a cornerstone of ethical standards, is just a sop demanded by "silly, know-nothings", eh?
Boy, that makes things a lot more expedient.
Ya know, if we could dispense with that silly Constitution that would speed things up too.

[j2k4]

No, i gave you a reference to stop your confusion over the Haliburton reference supplied by Clocker.

However, when a company is being investigated for stealing $billions from the Taxpayer, then it is inappropriate to keep hiring them with tax dollars.

Thanks RF but I'm certain that j2 got the reference at once.

I've always preferred that guilt be assigned over "actual" impropriety, myself...leave the job of determining same to a genuine investigatory effort, rather than a bunch of silly, know-nothing citizens panting over incomplete and sensationalistic media reportage.
Apparently, avoiding the "appearance of impropriety", long a cornerstone of ethical standards, is just a sop demanded by "silly, know-nothings", eh?
Boy, that makes things a lot more expedient.
Ya know, if we could dispense with that silly Constitution that would speed things up too.

The cynical side of me says the Republican contingent has finally decided to play the game as Democrats have played it for years:

"What you think you see is an illusion, and if what you think you see actually is happening, you are misinformed as to it's character, relevance, or importance.

Trust us."

In reality, the problem is only one of perception, as it is still formed by the media and liberalism in general.

[clocker]

In reality, the problem is only one of perception, as it is still formed by the media and liberalism in general.
I see.
So, investigations by the SEC, Justice Dept. and the Pentagon are merely liberal perceptions fueled by the media.

I had no idea we were so supernaturally adept.
Instead of voting against Bush why didn't we think to just levitate him?

[j2k4]

In reality, the problem is only one of perception, as it is still formed by the media and liberalism in general.
I see.
So, investigations by the SEC, Justice Dept. and the Pentagon are merely liberal perceptions fueled by the media.

Just so-the previous administration had the advantage of an Executive whose Oval-Office whoring overwhelmed and obscured the tremendous variety of corrupt activities occurring coincidentally.

We see remnant activity to this day, anent the machinations of one Samuel (Sandy) Berger, aided, however insufficiently, by his sicks and underwear.

I had no idea we were so supernaturally adept.
Instead of voting against Bush why didn't we think to just levitate him?

Levitate him rather than vote for him?

I'm not sure of the political effect of it, but as parlor tricks go, levitation ranks among the best, and doing it for an audience could produce significant revenue.

In these cash-strapped times, I'm sure he could be persuaded; I say, go for it!

[vidcc]

Just because we have an obligation to rebuild New Orleans doesn't mean we have to put it back in the same place. For $200 billion, we could put the French Quarter on the moon. Why don't we put it someplace it can stay out of harm and do some good? After all, New Orleans is the Big Easy, and a lot of America is uptight. Which is why I say we put New Orleans in Kansas.

What do you say, Kansas? Put down your hoes and come meet some. Welcome New Orleans to the land that fun forgot. An infusion of color and gayness in the dry Kansas plain. Why, it'll be as if they shot "The Wizard of Oz" on location. You're going to love it! New Orleans is one of the great towns. It's my kind of town, an outpost of free living and sophistication in a sea of - well, now, sea.

You can't tell me that the giant swath of red America that Kansas sits in the middle of wouldn't benefit from thousands of insane Creoles who understand that hangovers only happen to people foolish enough to stop drinking. I read this week that the strippers have gone back to work in New Orleans. They don't even have clothes, and already they're taking them off. Kansas could use some of that spirit.

It could use some jazz, some blues...some blacks. The people of New Orleans are the most tolerant of all Americans. I mean, for Christ's sake, they put up with Anne Rice! And as an extra bonus, they're French, and that'll really piss off Bush. When the French land right in the middle of Bob Dole's Viagra farm.

So, don't think of it as a million-and-a-half black people moving in next door. Think of it as the "March of the Penguins." Only, you know, with a million-and-a-half black people.

Yes, I see a shining city on a plain. New Orleans, Kansas. Where people are learning. They're learning that a gay pride parade isn't something to fear; it's something to laugh at. So what do you say, Kansas? They need a home. You need to get the stick out of your ass. It's a win-win! Come on, Kansas, show some curiosity, show some compassion. But most of all, show us your tits!!

[Everose]

Just because we have an obligation to rebuild New Orleans doesn't mean we have to put it back in the same place. For $200 billion, we could put the French Quarter on the moon. Why don't we put it someplace it can stay out of harm and do some good? After all, New Orleans is the Big Easy, and a lot of America is uptight. Which is why I say we put New Orleans in Kansas.

What do you say, Kansas? Put down your hoes and come meet some. Welcome New Orleans to the land that fun forgot. An infusion of color and gayness in the dry Kansas plain. Why, it'll be as if they shot "The Wizard of Oz" on location. You're going to love it! New Orleans is one of the great towns. It's my kind of town, an outpost of free living and sophistication in a sea of - well, now, sea.

You can't tell me that the giant swath of red America that Kansas sits in the middle of wouldn't benefit from thousands of insane Creoles who understand that hangovers only happen to people foolish enough to stop drinking. I read this week that the strippers have gone back to work in New Orleans. They don't even have clothes, and already they're taking them off. Kansas could use some of that spirit.

It could use some jazz, some blues...some blacks. The people of New Orleans are the most tolerant of all Americans. I mean, for Christ's sake, they put up with Anne Rice! And as an extra bonus, they're French, and that'll really piss off Bush. When the French land right in the middle of Bob Dole's Viagra farm.

So, don't think of it as a million-and-a-half black people moving in next door. Think of it as the "March of the Penguins." Only, you know, with a million-and-a-half black people.

Yes, I see a shining city on a plain. New Orleans, Kansas. Where people are learning. They're learning that a gay pride parade isn't something to fear; it's something to laugh at. So what do you say, Kansas? They need a home. You need to get the stick out of your ass. It's a win-win! Come on, Kansas, show some curiosity, show some compassion. But most of all, show us your tits!!



Would this be the same Bill Maher who thought the 'right to privacy' was given to us in the Constitution? :lol:

[Busyman]

Would this be the same Bill Maher who thought the 'right to privacy' was given to us in the Constitution? :lol:
Why, 'cause the Constitution doesn't say the word "privacy"?

9th Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I guess you are laughing at U.S. Court Justice John Roberts 'cause he feels the Constitution covers it too. :dry:

(also look up Amendments 3-5 when you get done laughing)

[Skiz]

I just find your position with regard to your fellow citizens strange. If a couple owned their house in New Orleans and had no mortgage on it, then you are willing to rebuild it for them, then rent it to them or have them pay for it. Whereas I suspect that others may see it as a national disaster, which you should all sort out together. By putting people back in the position they were before it happened. Not better off, just back where they were before it happened.

Your position is surprisingly lacking in compassion for your fellow citizens.


Hey, I'm all for pulling together to help out my countrymen that are in a jam, make no mistake, but what the Louisiana Legislature is asking for is absurd. That are asking the US federal govt to give them (without even batting an eye) $250 billion on top of the 100's of millions that the govt and private organizations such as the United Way and The Red Cross have done already. They want the federal govt to float the entire bill.

I'm sorry, that those people have been hit so hard, but I don't want my rates and taxes increased so that NO can get a new Superdome ffs. I don't want to pay the $25,000,000 that they're asking for to fund sugarcane research either for example. The LA Legislature is simply being unreasonable. Just like the looters that stole 6 televisions when they only had 2 bedrooms to put them in were going overboard, so is this LA legislature.

I can see where this going already, and I saw it when it happened years ago when the govt paid all the families of 9/11 something like $2.5 million each. They set precedence. If we give LA the money they're asking for, then guess what's going to happen when the next big tornado hits Kansas, or the next fire rips through Arizona.....

[Everose]

Would this be the same Bill Maher who thought the 'right to privacy' was given to us in the Constitution? :lol:
Why, 'cause the Constitution doesn't say the word "privacy"?

9th Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I guess you are laughing at U.S. Court Justice John Roberts 'cause he feels the Constitution covers it too. :dry:

(also look up Amendments 3-5 when you get done laughing)


No, actually, I am laughing at Bill Maher. :)


Maher Admits Naivete, Thought “Right
to Privacy” in Constitution

The controversy last week over Senator Rick Santorum's remarks about the slippery slope of the Supreme Court finding a right to any kind of consensual sex based on a “right to privacy” in the penumbra of the Constitution, has had one benefit: A well-known liberal commentator on political issues has conceded his naivete about which rights are in the Constitution.

On Friday night's Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO, Maher admitted: “This has been a learning experience for me. I also thought that privacy was something we were granted in the Constitution. I have learned from this when in fact the word privacy does not appear in the Constitution.”

Maher's admission of his naivete came after columnist/author Ann Coulter observed on the April 25 program: “I think what he said was completely defensible and I think it's an important point, which is, you know, the Constitution describes a limited form of government and then there's a Bill of Rights with very few rights. And I think that Americans should start to recognize there are a lot of good things that aren't constitutional rights.”
Maher then conceded: “You know what, this has been a learning experience for me. I also thought that privacy was something we were granted in the Constitution. I have learned from this when in fact the word privacy does not appear in the Constitution.”

You wonder how many journalists share Maher's basic lack of knowledge about the Constitution, a lack of knowledge which may explain much of the bad reporting on the matter.

A right to “privacy” was first broached by the Supreme Court in its 1965 Griswold v Connecticut decision overturning a state ban on birth control and solidified in the majority's Roe v Wade discovery of a privacy right in the “penumbra” of the Constitution in order to find rationale for overturning state bans on abortion. But it isn't in the Constitution.

[Busyman]

I just find your position with regard to your fellow citizens strange. If a couple owned their house in New Orleans and had no mortgage on it, then you are willing to rebuild it for them, then rent it to them or have them pay for it. Whereas I suspect that others may see it as a national disaster, which you should all sort out together. By putting people back in the position they were before it happened. Not better off, just back where they were before it happened.

Your position is surprisingly lacking in compassion for your fellow citizens.


Hey, I'm all for pulling together to help out my countrymen that are in a jam, make no mistake, but what the Louisiana Legislature is asking for is absurd. That are asking the US federal govt to give them (without even batting an eye) $250 billion on top of the 100's of millions that the govt and private organizations such as the United Way and The Red Cross have done already. They want the federal govt to float the entire bill.

I'm sorry, that those people have been hit so hard, but I don't want my rates and taxes increased so that NO can get a new Superdome ffs. I don't want to pay the $25,000,000 that they're asking for to fund sugarcane research either for example. The LA Legislature is simply being unreasonable. Just like the looters that stole 6 televisions when they only had 2 bedrooms to put them in were going overboard, so is this LA legislature.

I can see where this going already, and I saw it when it happened years ago when the govt paid all the families of 9/11 something like $2.5 million each. They set precedence. If we give LA the money they're asking for, then guess what's going to happen when the next big tornado hits Kansas, or the next fire rips through Arizona.....
As I say....No oversight. :dry:

The government could pay an oversight committee and it would probably cost 100 times less than the waste.

[Busyman]

Why, 'cause the Constitution doesn't say the word "privacy"?

9th Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I guess you are laughing at U.S. Court Justice John Roberts 'cause he feels the Constitution covers it too. :dry:

(also look up Amendments 3-5 when you get done laughing)


No, actually, I am laughing at Bill Maher. :)


Maher Admits Naivete, Thought “Right
to Privacy” in Constitution

The controversy last week over Senator Rick Santorum's remarks about the slippery slope of the Supreme Court finding a right to any kind of consensual sex based on a “right to privacy” in the penumbra of the Constitution, has had one benefit: A well-known liberal commentator on political issues has conceded his naivete about which rights are in the Constitution.

On Friday night's Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO, Maher admitted: “This has been a learning experience for me. I also thought that privacy was something we were granted in the Constitution. I have learned from this when in fact the word privacy does not appear in the Constitution.”

Maher's admission of his naivete came after columnist/author Ann Coulter observed on the April 25 program: “I think what he said was completely defensible and I think it's an important point, which is, you know, the Constitution describes a limited form of government and then there's a Bill of Rights with very few rights. And I think that Americans should start to recognize there are a lot of good things that aren't constitutional rights.”
Maher then conceded: “You know what, this has been a learning experience for me. I also thought that privacy was something we were granted in the Constitution. I have learned from this when in fact the word privacy does not appear in the Constitution.”

You wonder how many journalists share Maher's basic lack of knowledge about the Constitution, a lack of knowledge which may explain much of the bad reporting on the matter.

A right to “privacy” was first broached by the Supreme Court in its 1965 Griswold v Connecticut decision overturning a state ban on birth control and solidified in the majority's Roe v Wade discovery of a privacy right in the “penumbra” of the Constitution in order to find rationale for overturning state bans on abortion. But it isn't in the Constitution.
:O
Why, 'cause the Constitution doesn't say the word "privacy"? :O

It is covered Evey. :dry:

[j2k4]

No, actually, I am laughing at Bill Maher. :)


Maher Admits Naivete, Thought “Right
to Privacy” in Constitution

The controversy last week over Senator Rick Santorum's remarks about the slippery slope of the Supreme Court finding a right to any kind of consensual sex based on a “right to privacy” in the penumbra of the Constitution, has had one benefit: A well-known liberal commentator on political issues has conceded his naivete about which rights are in the Constitution.

On Friday night's Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO, Maher admitted: “This has been a learning experience for me. I also thought that privacy was something we were granted in the Constitution. I have learned from this when in fact the word privacy does not appear in the Constitution.”

Maher's admission of his naivete came after columnist/author Ann Coulter observed on the April 25 program: “I think what he said was completely defensible and I think it's an important point, which is, you know, the Constitution describes a limited form of government and then there's a Bill of Rights with very few rights. And I think that Americans should start to recognize there are a lot of good things that aren't constitutional rights.”
Maher then conceded: “You know what, this has been a learning experience for me. I also thought that privacy was something we were granted in the Constitution. I have learned from this when in fact the word privacy does not appear in the Constitution.”

You wonder how many journalists share Maher's basic lack of knowledge about the Constitution, a lack of knowledge which may explain much of the bad reporting on the matter.

A right to “privacy” was first broached by the Supreme Court in its 1965 Griswold v Connecticut decision overturning a state ban on birth control and solidified in the majority's Roe v Wade discovery of a privacy right in the “penumbra” of the Constitution in order to find rationale for overturning state bans on abortion. But it isn't in the Constitution.
:O
Why, 'cause the Constitution doesn't say the word "privacy"? :O

It is covered Evey. :dry:

"Covered"?

That's debatable.

Suffice it to say it did not exist until it was "sensed" by the "emanations of penumbras" crowd in the sixties.

That is not at all debatable, B.

[Busyman]

:O
Why, 'cause the Constitution doesn't say the word "privacy"? :O

It is covered Evey. :dry:

"Covered"?

That's debatable.

Suffice it to say it did not exist until it was "sensed" by the "emanations of penumbras" crowd in the sixties.

That is not at all debatable, B.

Why, 'cause the Constitution doesn't say the word "privacy"? :dry:

[DanB]

J2 do you think you shouldn't be offered a right to privacy?

[j2k4]

J2 do you think you shouldn't be offered a right to privacy?

I didn't say that.

What I am saying is that the Supreme Court created it out of some very thin air, and, without further official note, it has grown to ridiculous extremes that "allow" the Court to circumvent the legislative process as well as the people's will.

As to whether or not I think it should exist, the answer is yes, but not in such a way as to forestall any attempt at all to circumscribe it.

Given it's "wide-open" interpretation, I don't wonder why we have the ACLU crying over the possibility of civically-operated surveillance systems which would preclude the silly trend of arguing whether such a thing as "privacy" exists on, say, a subway platform or a public sidewalk... :dry:

[Busyman]

J2 do you think you shouldn't be offered a right to privacy?

I didn't say that.

What I am saying is that the Supreme Court created it out of some very thin air, and, without further official note, it has grown to ridiculous extremes that "allow" the Court to circumvent the legislative process as well as the people's will.

As to whether or not I think it should exist, the answer is yes, but not in such a way as to forestall any attempt at all to circumscribe it.

Given it's "wide-open" interpretation, I don't wonder why we have the ACLU crying over the possibility of civically-operated surveillance systems which would preclude the silly trend of arguing whether such a thing as "privacy" exists on, say, a subway platform or a public sidewalk... :dry:
Those are public j2. That would be silly. :P

[j2k4]

I didn't say that.

What I am saying is that the Supreme Court created it out of some very thin air, and, without further official note, it has grown to ridiculous extremes that "allow" the Court to circumvent the legislative process as well as the people's will.

As to whether or not I think it should exist, the answer is yes, but not in such a way as to forestall any attempt at all to circumscribe it.

Given it's "wide-open" interpretation, I don't wonder why we have the ACLU crying over the possibility of civically-operated surveillance systems which would preclude the silly trend of arguing whether such a thing as "privacy" exists on, say, a subway platform or a public sidewalk... :dry:
Those are public j2. That would be silly. :P


Please, allow you to repeat myself... ;)

[Skiz]

I figured I would shove this in here instead of creating a new thread. This from the Canadian Press, which apparently, is a bit more objective than our own press and politicians. ;)




George Bush, the man
David Warren.The Ottawa Citizen

Sunday, September 11, 2005

There's plenty wrong with America, since you asked. I'm tempted to say
that the only difference from Canada is that they have a few things
right. That would be unfair, of course -- I am often pleased to discover
things we still get right.

But one of them would not be disaster preparation. If something happened
up here, on the scale of Katrina, we wouldn't even have the resources to
arrive late. We would be waiting for the Americans to come save us, the
same way the government in Louisiana just waved and pointed at
Washington, D.C. The theory being that, when you're in real trouble,
that's where the adults live.

And that isn't an exaggeration. Almost everything that has worked in the
recovery operation along the U.S. Gulf Coast has been military and
National Guard. Within a few days, under several commands, finally
consolidated under the remarkable Lt.-Gen. Russell Honore, it was once
again the U.S. military efficiently cobbling together a recovery
operation on a scale beyond the capacity of any other earthly
institution.

We hardly have a military up here. We have elected one feckless
government after another that has cut corners until there is nothing
substantial left. We don't have the ability even to transport and equip
our few soldiers. Should disaster strike at home, on a big scale, we
become a Third World country. At which point, our national smugness is
of no avail.

>From Democrats and the American Left -- the U.S. equivalent to the
people who run Canada -- we are still hearing that the disaster in New
Orleans showed that a heartless, white Republican America had abandoned
its underclass.

This is garbage. The great majority of those not evacuated lived in
assisted housing and receive food stamps, prescription medicine and
government support through many other programs. Many have, all their
lives, expected someone to lift them to safety, without input from
themselves. And the demagogic mayor they elected left, quite literally,
hundreds of transit and school buses that could have driven them out of
town parked in rows, to be lost in the flood.

Yes, that was insensitive. But it is also the truth; and sooner or later
we must acknowledge that welfare dependency creates exactly the sort of
haplessness and social degeneration we saw on display, as the
floodwaters rose. Many suffered terribly, and many died, and one's heart
goes out. But already the survivors are being put up in new
accommodations, and their various entitlements have been directed to new
locations.

The scale of private charity has also been unprecedented. There are yet
no statistics, but I'll wager the most generous state in the union will
prove to have been arch-Republican Texas and that, nationally,
contributions in cash and kind are coming disproportionately from people
who vote Republican. For the world divides into "the mouths" and "the
wallets."



The Bush-bashing, both down there and up here, has so far lost touch
with reality, as to raise questions about the bashers' state of mind.

Consult any authoritative source on how government works in the United
States and you will learn that the U.S. federal government's legal,
constitutional, and institutional responsibility for first response to
Katrina, as to any natural disaster, was zero.



Notwithstanding, President Bush took the prescient step of declaring a
disaster, in order to begin deploying FEMA and other federal assets, two
full days in advance of the storm fall. In the little time since, he has
managed to co-ordinate an immense recovery operation -- the largest in
human history -- without invoking martial powers. He has been
sufficiently presidential to respond, not even once, to the
extraordinarily mendacious and childish blame-throwing.

[Busyman]

I figured I would shove this in here instead of creating a new thread. This from the Canadian Press, which apparently, is a bit more objective than our own press and politicians. ;)




George Bush, the man
David Warren.The Ottawa Citizen

Sunday, September 11, 2005

There's plenty wrong with America, since you asked. I'm tempted to say
that the only difference from Canada is that they have a few things
right. That would be unfair, of course -- I am often pleased to discover
things we still get right.

But one of them would not be disaster preparation. If something happened
up here, on the scale of Katrina, we wouldn't even have the resources to
arrive late. We would be waiting for the Americans to come save us, the
same way the government in Louisiana just waved and pointed at
Washington, D.C. The theory being that, when you're in real trouble,
that's where the adults live.

And that isn't an exaggeration. Almost everything that has worked in the
recovery operation along the U.S. Gulf Coast has been military and
National Guard. Within a few days, under several commands, finally
consolidated under the remarkable Lt.-Gen. Russell Honore, it was once
again the U.S. military efficiently cobbling together a recovery
operation on a scale beyond the capacity of any other earthly
institution.

We hardly have a military up here. We have elected one feckless
government after another that has cut corners until there is nothing
substantial left. We don't have the ability even to transport and equip
our few soldiers. Should disaster strike at home, on a big scale, we
become a Third World country. At which point, our national smugness is
of no avail.

>From Democrats and the American Left -- the U.S. equivalent to the
people who run Canada -- we are still hearing that the disaster in New
Orleans showed that a heartless, white Republican America had abandoned
its underclass.

This is garbage. The great majority of those not evacuated lived in
assisted housing and receive food stamps, prescription medicine and
government support through many other programs. Many have, all their
lives, expected someone to lift them to safety, without input from
themselves. And the demagogic mayor they elected left, quite literally,
hundreds of transit and school buses that could have driven them out of
town parked in rows, to be lost in the flood.

Yes, that was insensitive. But it is also the truth; and sooner or later
we must acknowledge that welfare dependency creates exactly the sort of
haplessness and social degeneration we saw on display, as the
floodwaters rose. Many suffered terribly, and many died, and one's heart
goes out. But already the survivors are being put up in new
accommodations, and their various entitlements have been directed to new
locations.

The scale of private charity has also been unprecedented. There are yet
no statistics, but I'll wager the most generous state in the union will
prove to have been arch-Republican Texas and that, nationally,
contributions in cash and kind are coming disproportionately from people
who vote Republican. For the world divides into "the mouths" and "the
wallets."



The Bush-bashing, both down there and up here, has so far lost touch
with reality, as to raise questions about the bashers' state of mind.

Consult any authoritative source on how government works in the United
States and you will learn that the U.S. federal government's legal,
constitutional, and institutional responsibility for first response to
Katrina, as to any natural disaster, was zero.



Notwithstanding, President Bush took the prescient step of declaring a
disaster, in order to begin deploying FEMA and other federal assets, two
full days in advance of the storm fall. In the little time since, he has
managed to co-ordinate an immense recovery operation -- the largest in
human history -- without invoking martial powers. He has been
sufficiently presidential to respond, not even once, to the
extraordinarily mendacious and childish blame-throwing.
I don't care if he's from Canada. He's an idiot and his whole diatribe was entirely biased in Bush's favor.

Yes, many of the folks down there are on assisted living but that matters (cue JPaul) not one jot.

5 FUCKING DAYS.

This diatribe idiot even mentions that Democrats are the same as Canadians, as if Democrats are as helpless as he makes Canadians out to be and that Repubs are the saviors of humanity. Repubs and Dems make up the US government.

The dipshit in this article also seems to point out that Bush's actions in the Katrina debacle were exemplary.

What an idiot.

Whether the state fucked up in the evacuation (they did), the people were on welfare, they were black, they killed each other at the Superdome afterwards, or the cops looted stores along with everyone else means shit as to whether the federal government takes pertinent action in a timely manner when a large chunk of The United States goes underwater.

[j2k4]

I figured I would shove this in here instead of creating a new thread. This from the Canadian Press, which apparently, is a bit more objective than our own press and politicians. ;)



I don't care if he's from Canada. He's an idiot and his whole diatribe was entirely biased in Bush's favor.

Yes, many of the folks down there are on assisted living but that matters (cue JPaul) not one jot.

5 FUCKING DAYS.

This diatribe idiot even mentions that Democrats are the same as Canadians, as if Democrats are as helpless as he makes Canadians out to be and that Repubs are the saviors of humanity. Repubs and Dems make up the US government.

The dipshit in this article also seems to point out that Bush's actions in the Katrina debacle were exemplary.

What an idiot.

Whether the state fucked up in the evacuation (they did), the people were on welfare, they were black, they killed each other at the Superdome afterwards, or the cops looted stores along with everyone else means shit as to whether the federal government takes pertinent action in a timely manner when a large chunk of The United States goes underwater.

That was a diatribe, B.

BTW-

There has been a sizable poor black population in New Orleans for generations.

Whom is to blame for that?

Bush?

I am also aware that there were about 150-200K Hispanics (legal and otherwise) in the metro area.

I haven't heard a thing about them-do you suppose they all perished?

[JunkBarMan]

I am baffled by this topic; was there ever a time when Bush wasn't daft?!?!

[j2k4]

I am baffled by this topic; was there ever a time when Bush wasn't daft?!?!

Re-read the title.

I contend merely that his daftness has become more consuming, not that he was never touched by it.

[vidcc]

I am also aware that there were about 150-200K Hispanics (legal and otherwise) in the metro area.

I haven't heard a thing about them-do you suppose they all perished?
They made preparations.

The Colombians each put 1 Kilo of cocaine in their pockets thus making them totally invisible to US law enforcement and immigration officers.
The Cubans fashioned rafts out of bathtubs and ironing boards and are still paddling up the Mississippi to Wisconsin.
The Mexicans are currently working for fema contracted companies "cash in hand" for 30% of the minimum wage.

[j2k4]

I am also aware that there were about 150-200K Hispanics (legal and otherwise) in the metro area.

I haven't heard a thing about them-do you suppose they all perished?
They made preparations.

The Colombians each put 1 Kilo of cocaine in their pockets thus making them totally invisible to US law enforcement and immigration officers.
The Cubans fashioned rafts out of bathtubs and ironing boards and are still paddling up the Mississippi to Wisconsin.
The Mexicans are currently working for fema contracted companies "cash in hand" for 30% of the minimum wage.

Ah-good for them!

No time for complaints, I guess... ;)

[Busyman]

I don't care if he's from Canada. He's an idiot and his whole diatribe was entirely biased in Bush's favor.

Yes, many of the folks down there are on assisted living but that matters (cue JPaul) not one jot.

5 FUCKING DAYS.

This diatribe idiot even mentions that Democrats are the same as Canadians, as if Democrats are as helpless as he makes Canadians out to be and that Repubs are the saviors of humanity. Repubs and Dems make up the US government.

The dipshit in this article also seems to point out that Bush's actions in the Katrina debacle were exemplary.

What an idiot.

Whether the state fucked up in the evacuation (they did), the people were on welfare, they were black, they killed each other at the Superdome afterwards, or the cops looted stores along with everyone else means shit as to whether the federal government takes pertinent action in a timely manner when a large chunk of The United States goes underwater.

That was a diatribe, B.

BTW-

There has been a sizable poor black population in New Orleans for generations.

Whom is to blame for that?

Bush?

I am also aware that there were about 150-200K Hispanics (legal and otherwise) in the metro area.

I haven't heard a thing about them-do you suppose they all perished?
There you go again. No one brought up race as a focus.

You ask questions like "Whom is to blame for that?"

Who the fuck cares man? Fuck are you asking? The demographic doesn't matter now does it? Or did it?

Either way it took a work week.....pink toes, black skin, or caramel complexion. :ermm:

[j2k4]

That was a diatribe, B.

BTW-

There has been a sizable poor black population in New Orleans for generations.

Whom is to blame for that?

Bush?

I am also aware that there were about 150-200K Hispanics (legal and otherwise) in the metro area.

I haven't heard a thing about them-do you suppose they all perished?
There you go again. No one brought up race as a focus.

You ask questions like "Whom is to blame for that?"

Who the fuck cares man? Fuck are you asking? The demographic doesn't matter now does it? Or did it?

Either way it took a work week.....pink toes, black skin, or caramel complexion. :ermm:

Oh.

Forgot about the pink-toed ones.

I think it's about time that you realized/acknowledged that while the response was incredibly sloppy, it required a solidly tripartite effort to screw things up so badly, and this "five fucking days" thing is beginning to sound like a broken record.

I think you were the one whose post contained the words "poor" and "black", and I'm pretty sure you were referring to human beings.

BTW-

What do you make of the latest news that stories of killing and rape at the Superdome were "wildly exaggerated" and untrue?

Have you consumed any news since Katrina hit?

What have you got against my asking questions?

[Busyman]

There you go again. No one brought up race as a focus.

You ask questions like "Whom is to blame for that?"

Who the fuck cares man? Fuck are you asking? The demographic doesn't matter now does it? Or did it?

Either way it took a work week.....pink toes, black skin, or caramel complexion. :ermm:

Oh.

Forgot about the pink-toed ones.

I think it's about time that you realized/acknowledged that while the response was incredibly sloppy, it required a solidly tripartite effort to screw things up so badly, and this "five fucking days" thing is beginning to sound like a broken record.

I think you were the one whose post contained the words "poor" and "black", and I'm pretty sure you were referring to human beings.

BTW-

What do you make of the latest news that stories of killing and rape at the Superdome were "wildly exaggerated" and untrue?

Have you consumed any news since Katrina hit?

What have you got against my asking questions?
No I never said poor. Either way, if you bothered to glean the context of the post then it was unmistakable that it was irrelevant. I did forget though that you could pull race from NASCAR and should have realized that as soon as black was mentioned.....even as irrelevance. :dry:

5 FUCKING DAYS :shifty:

I have seen the news and it sounds to me like the "Superdome Stories" (coming as a TV movie probably) were true and there was a severe lack of law enforcement there. If any substantial criminal element made it there, lack of law enforcement = no deterrent = crime. Not rocket science.

[j2k4]

I have seen the news and it sounds to me like the "Superdome Stories" (coming as a TV movie probably) were true and there was a severe lack of law enforcement there. If any substantial criminal element made it there, lack of law enforcement = no deterrent = crime. Not rocket science.

Read this, then.

No movie material here...there were more forceful recountings, but I chose this one because it is not possible to refute Auntie Beeb, and everyone knows it.

Ask anyone...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4292114.stm

[Busyman]

I have seen the news and it sounds to me like the "Superdome Stories" (coming as a TV movie probably) were true and there was a severe lack of law enforcement there. If any substantial criminal element made it there, lack of law enforcement = no deterrent = crime. Not rocket science.

Read this, then.

No movie material here...there were more forceful recountings, but I chose this one because it is not possible to refute Auntie Beeb, and everyone knows it.

Ask anyone...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4292114.stm
Well damn...I never heard of babies being raped and such. I can't say all the stories are true. Who can?

I would believe that state officials will try to play down some of it to save face irregardless to the lack of local law enforcement at the 'Dome.

I really don't know what you are getting at but then again who does?

[JPaul]

I am also aware that there were about 150-200K Hispanics (legal and otherwise) in the metro area.

I haven't heard a thing about them-do you suppose they all perished?
They made preparations.

The Colombians each put 1 Kilo of cocaine in their pockets thus making them totally invisible to US law enforcement and immigration officers.
The Cubans fashioned rafts out of bathtubs and ironing boards and are still paddling up the Mississippi to Wisconsin.
The Mexicans are currently working for fema contracted companies "cash in hand" for 30% of the minimum wage.
If I were to call you a narrow minded, stereotyping, half-wit would that make me a bad person.

[j2k4]

Read this, then.

No movie material here...there were more forceful recountings, but I chose this one because it is not possible to refute Auntie Beeb, and everyone knows it.

Ask anyone...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4292114.stm
Well damn...I never heard of babies being raped and such. I can't say all the stories are true. Who can?

I would believe that state officials will try to play down some of it to save face irregardless to the lack of local law enforcement at the 'Dome.

I really don't know what you are getting at but then again who does?

Well, then, in aid of your confusion:

You alluded to them as being on welfare-I surmised (therefore) that they were poor.

You alluded to the Superdome stories as indicative of neglect; I find testimony that this may be an incorrect conclusion.

What did I miss?

[j2k4]

They made preparations.

The Colombians each put 1 Kilo of cocaine in their pockets thus making them totally invisible to US law enforcement and immigration officers.
The Cubans fashioned rafts out of bathtubs and ironing boards and are still paddling up the Mississippi to Wisconsin.
The Mexicans are currently working for fema contracted companies "cash in hand" for 30% of the minimum wage.
If I were to call you a narrow minded, stereotyping, half-wit would that make me a bad person.

I think vid was attempting to commit sarcasm, JP.

Let us default to a more charitable position. :rolleyes:

BTW-

I am outraged.

Busyman has accused me of gleaning.

What do you think I should do? :lol:

[Busyman]

Well damn...I never heard of babies being raped and such. I can't say all the stories are true. Who can?

I would believe that state officials will try to play down some of it to save face irregardless to the lack of local law enforcement at the 'Dome.

I really don't know what you are getting at but then again who does?

Well, then, in aid of your confusion:

You alluded to them as being on welfare-I surmised (therefore) that they were poor.

You alluded to the Superdome stories as indicative of neglect; I find testimony that this may be an incorrect conclusion.

What did I miss?

With the allusion to folks on welfare, I think you missed the "so the fuck what" in there. In essence, I could have said, "Whether they were rich...".
It would still be STFW. The word 'whether' kinda takes you there. :ermm:

Irregardless to the 'Dome, I could be incorrect in my conclusion.....since I wasn't there. Admittedly, I haven't sat in front of Fox News as much as you have, most likely. When I've been in front of the tube, it's been mostly to watch all the good American TV shows that I've TIVO'd. Hell, I just watched an episode of CSI: Miami from last Monday.

[Busyman]

If I were to call you a narrow minded, stereotyping, half-wit would that make me a bad person.

I think vid was attempting to commit sarcasm, JP.

Let us default to a more charitable position. :rolleyes:

BTW-

I am outraged.

Busyman has accused me of gleaning.

What do you think I should do? :lol:
Actually - JP is well aware of sarcasm. He must get in his jabs. Let him. I remember one when he went on a rant about America when...no one said anything about it in the first place. :unsure:

Actually - you were accused of not gleaning.

RIF :ph34r:

[GepperRankins]

a lot of damn lefty news sites are suggesting that the looting, shooting and so on were exagerated in the media. does anyone know who raped who in the dome or who shot who during airlifts?

at the same time there are reports that suggest the people were neglected, hundreds being refused exit for several days and people asking for help being told to fuck off by the police and national guard

[j2k4]

I am outraged.

Busyman has accused me of gleaning.

What do you think I should do? :lol:


Actually - you were accused of not gleaning.

RIF :ph34r:

Was, too.

You said gleaning, and it doesn't matter what else you said.

Hmmm.

How do you type a soft wet raspberry?

:P

[Busyman]

Actually - you were accused of not gleaning.

RIF :ph34r:

Was, too.

You said gleaning, and it doesn't matter what else you said.

Hmmm.

How do you type a soft wet raspberry?

:P
:blink:

[j2k4]

Was, too.

You said gleaning, and it doesn't matter what else you said.

Hmmm.

How do you type a soft wet raspberry?

:P
:blink:

Well?

Can we keep this up for "5 FUCKING DAYS"?

:D

[Busyman]

:blink:

Well?

Can we keep this up for "5 FUCKING DAYS"?

:D
:blink:

[JPaul]

If I were to call you a narrow minded, stereotyping, half-wit would that make me a bad person.

I think vid was attempting to commit sarcasm, JP.



That makes his disgraceful comments no less deplorable. In fact, for someone who sees himself on the moral high ground so often, the post was rather telling.

[vidcc]

I think vid was attempting to commit sarcasm, JP.



That makes his disgraceful comments no less deplorable. In fact, for someone who sees himself on the moral high ground so often, the post was rather telling. :sleep1:

[JPaul]

:lol:

Oh no, the racist is mocking me, what to do.

[Busyman]

:lol:

Oh no, the racist is mocking me, what to do.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Quality.