Bush has gone totally daft...

[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.

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.

(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.

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

It is covered Evey.

[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.

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

It is covered Evey.

"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]

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

It is covered Evey.

"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"?

[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...

[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...

Those are public j2. That would be silly.

[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...

Those are public j2. That would be silly.

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.