Hurricane Katrina...

[peat moss]

In a feeble attempt to change the subject , a young friend at work today wondered aloud if the people were covered by insurance ? Like do you still have to pay car payments on a car 10 feer under water, or mortgage payments on a house no longer standing ? Made me sick to think of it tho .



I'm thinking act of God and probably not covered .............

[brotherdoobie]

In a feeble attempt to change the subject , a young friend at work today wondered aloud if the people were covered by insurance ? Like do you still have to pay car payments on a car 10 feer under water, or mortgage payments on a house no longer standing ? Made me sick to think of it tho .



I'm thinking act of God and probably not covered .............

I was thinking about that today. What about all of the
lost wages, due to people being off of work? I know I
couldn't afford to miss even a week of work.

Peace bd

[peat moss]

Hey bro if I got sick or hurt and missed two "pay days" I'd be out in the street till my plan kicks in after 90 days . And I have one of the better ones . Let alone worry about my car payments .



Kind of puts it into perspective some there have no homes or jobs to go back to .

[peat moss]

This is interesting , first Mexicon troops operating on American soil since 1842 .


http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...tion-headlines

[manker]

As for my 'Don't judge me' comment. It wasn't about 'me' - it was about judging the bilions of people who decided that America have enough funds to clear up their own mess and their donations were needed more elsewhere.

So you are saying that you did indeed donate money? Because it sounds like you didn't, so that would include yourself as #1 in the billions you are talking about.

The post was about European leaders not donating (much). I appropriated that to a post I made about not judging those who didn't donate. That's why it isn't about 'me'. I'm not billions of people.

I can be even more specific if necessary but, really, I think that should suffice.

Here's a very unique idea: let's stop attacking each other and pointing fingers and just say your peace. If you don't agree with someone, fine. Regardless of popular belief, that is a very natural human thing to do. But quit taking shots at each other.

If you disagree with someone and post to that effect, you're effectively taking a shot at their beliefs.

Given this is a place to discuss opinions, how do you propose we avoid this.

What saddens me with this topic is that it seems like people are losing focus that there are actual people, lots of people affected by this tragedy, and instead of keeping that in mind when posting, they just want to use this as a venue for America bashing.

Hey bash America, poopoo on Bush all you want, I don't care. But, this topic, this tragedy, these people they don't deserve it. If you hate America, anyone, from any country, that's fine, its your right, just don't lessen this topic with it.

These are human beings, people, your fellow man and woman; does it really matter they are from America? If so, then shame on you, all of you.

I don't think you can be addressing me since I haven't made a single post bashing America in this thread. However, since you chose to do so while answering me - I can state quite simply that what you're getting upset about is quite unavoidable.

Everyone sympathises with the loss of life. That is unquestionable.

However, the political actions that either contributed to the loss of life or stemmed it is what people disagree on. If you'd like a thread where person after person commiserates with the American nation, then start one but this thread is also discussing whether American politicians did the right thing.

There are bound to be people disagreeing and taking shots at each other's beliefs. You can either deal with that and contribute in a sensible manner or you can start a Hallmark thread* - your call.

*© Busyman

[Busyman]

while at the same time being incapable of organising what should have been a fairly straightforward emergency action.

Straightforward emergency action?!!!!

[Busyman]

Honestly Busyman, I don't know what people are supposed to post. Ask yourself, what is the right way to object to a government, George Bush, and America as a whole.

I do know this: The tragedy from this hurricane isn't the venue to post anti-America/Bush/Government topics. This is about the people, go make some other topic about those things. Lets act like mature people and not shout off at the mouth the first chance we get, just because we don't agree with something or someone.

Damn man, I feel a lot like everyone else in this topic, people in Louisiana got the shaft man, but I don't think it does any one of those people any good to sit here and bitch about Bush and America's government.

If you want to raise awareness about those things do it in the right way, don't prop it up on the backs of the people in this tragedy.

First off, the real good will come from action and not Hallmark posts or bitching. If these threads start generating money based on sympathy then I'll be a sympathizingbleedingheartliberalspammingpostwhore. Furthermore, if critical posts that you say are "prop[ped] up on the backs of the people in this tragedy" turn out to take food and shelter from the victims then I'll be the first to STFU.

Since they don't, I'll post how I feel and usually won't choose my words carefully.

Unlike others across the sea, if this was handled well, then I'd be first to stand-up and commend Bush. He just happens to dissapoint me time and time again.

When people show the correlation between this and Iraq. It's relevent. Correlation does always equal cause and effect but in this case, it could be somewhat.
When our government pours so much money and resources into "helping" other countries that well....

5 days is a long fucking time and I know the victims feel/felt the same way.

[JunkBarMan]

@mankar: Nice try, nice try. My good sir, you speak from both sides of your mouth. Post what you like, I am not your dictator. I said my peace, continue as you were.


@Busyman: I agree with most of what you say, and for that, I hope we can see eye to eye.

But, I am sorry to say sir, Correlation of Causation is indeed an untrue statment. Basic macroeconomics 101.

You correlate the money spent in Iraq as the reason why it took 5 days to get some action down south?

I don't think the reason why it took 5 days was a matter of money, was it? Bush just authorized $40 billion or something like that to start.

I think after this is all said and done, we can only hope that this "investigation" as to why it did take that long will reveal the error of our government's ways concerning FEMA. What that means at this moment, I don't know.
Most likely the top dog will get fired, or spin it on down to someone lower on the ranks, but people's heads will roll and life will go on as it always does.

I would only hope that our government will take FEMA and make it it's own department again, so the red tape won't be so thick the next time.

[Busyman]

@Busyman: I agree with most of what you say, and for that, I hope we can see eye to eye.

But, I am sorry to say sir, Correlation of Causation is indeed an untrue statment. Basic macroeconomics 101.

Cool. I never said it was a true statement. Are you trying to show your knowledge of macroeconomics?
CorrelationofCausationwhateverthefuck is not ALWAYS untrue though.
Oh but I said that already. Thanks I learned about that in the 9th grade and it wasn't macroeconomics
I will agree though that for the 5 day lag to be attibuted to lack of resources because of Iraq, is stretching. It could be logistics and notgiveashitism. However, it still relevent. If we have the need for soldiers for another war during the Iraqi War, it would be relevent and the possible cause for us being shorthanded.

I don't think the reason why it took 5 days was a matter of money, was it? Bush just authorized $40 billion or something like that to start.

I thought it was 10. Anyway I said nothing of money regarding Iraq. I'm talking soldiers. There are a certain amount used to secure places other than an actual affected emergency area (especially during an emergency). The government tries not to operate like the police where they send 6 cop cars for one incident while criminals can do fuck all elsewhere in the city.

[lynx]

J2, of course I'm going to call you on your previous statements.

You demanded Kofi Annan's head before any investigation was concluded, even the UN's own. You criticised the UN for running its own investigation.

Okay.

Yet you seem to be emphatic in refusing to do the same when your own president is directly involved, both as ultimate head of the organisations who are supposed to supply relief, and for conducting his own investigation.

Perhaps you can use your modly powers to manufacture a post in which I am "emphatic in refusing...", etc., but I have barely even posted here in my own thread, much less commented on Bush's role, or any investigation by anyone of anything.

Such content does not exist in this thread; you know it, and anyone else attending does also.
Thank you for confirming my point. How come you weren't so circumspect with regard to what was happening at the UN?

So I repeat that you are guilty of dual standards and hypocricy.

Merely saying it does not make it so, lynx, but again, I'm sure you could concoct something, couldn't you...
I could, but you've shown it to be unnecessary.

It seems to me that your government will be calling for wholesale changes at the UN for mismangement, while at the same time being incapable of organising what should have been a fairly straightforward emergency action. Perhaps that tells us the source of your hypocritical stance.

You really don't get it, do you?

You stand in judgement of every tiny thing that happens in the U.S., but wouldn't dream of being nearly so discerning, discriminating, or critical of ANYTHING that goes on at your beloved U.N..

Methinks the black pot is speaking out-of-turn, and from the shade, into the bargain.

You've got some nerve, calling me a hypocrite.

I get it exactly.

This is the third time in this thread that you've accused me of criticising the US. I've done no such thing, I've criticised you, but you probably think they are synonymous. Now you accuse me of ignoring what happens at the UN. Again, I've done no such thing. Unlike you, I waited for the outcome of the investigation.

I've done none of the things you accuse me of, a typical ploy by those who wish to divert attention from their own behaviour.

You criticised the UN and its head at a time when little information had been revealed and while an investigation was ongoing, actions which echoed those of many in the GOP. When I suggest you should simply be consistent you accuse me of making things up.

Frankly, if you can't even be consistent it lends weight to the argument that your opinions are worthless.