-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
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:
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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.
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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.
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
I had no idea we were so supernaturally adept.
Instead of voting against Bush why didn't we think to just levitate him?
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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!
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill maher
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!!
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill maher
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:
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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)
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
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.....
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skizo
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
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.
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everose
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Why, 'cause the Constitution doesn't say the word "privacy"?
:O
It is covered Evey. :dry:
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everose
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
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.
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
:O
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Why, 'cause the Constitution doesn't say the word "privacy"?
:dry:
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
J2 do you think you shouldn't be offered a right to privacy?
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanB
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:
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanB
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
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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... ;)
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
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. ;)
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skizo
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. ;)
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skizo
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?
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
I am baffled by this topic; was there ever a time when Bush wasn't daft?!?!
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JunkBarMan
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.
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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... ;)
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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:
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
If I were to call you a narrow minded, stereotyping, half-wit would that make me a bad person.
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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?
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
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:
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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:
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
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
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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:
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
-
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
:blink:
Well?
Can we keep this up for "5 FUCKING DAYS"?
:D
:blink:
