OT: Have we become that stupid ..

Page 6 of 16  


Status Quo describes the situation exactly. No one wants to take charge of getting things done and wants to blame some other government entity. Politics as usual regardless of which side you are on. 4 years ago we had similar flooding in Houston and the city government looked the other way up until that point. Houston has always had some flooding with each rain storm but it took 35 inches of rain one weekend during a tropical storm to open the city leaders eyes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It's beautiful that they had national guard troops standing by (to go to F***ing Iraq) as well. At first, I just didn't like Bush because he is a twit- but now I'd like to see him and his cronies formally charged with treason and hanged on prime-time TV. There have probably been plenty of messes that have been this large, or even larger in history- but none that I can recall seeing in my lifetime.
I've been spending all my time lately helping friends and family energy-proof thier homes and trying desperately to find used woodburning stoves (new ones are out of my family members' price range, and I can only afford to buy new for myself) just so we don't all freeze to death this winter- they'll let Louisana's residents drown, no doubt Wisconsin will ice over just as easily. Nobody I know has enough money to pay an additional 5-6x rate increase for heating oil- last year was bad enough for most folks, and it's becoming very clear that if you don't own a multi-national corporation or two these days, you're expendable garbage.
Yeah, yeah. I know, It's not Bush's fault. Except for the fact that the SOB seems to be working as hard as he can (when he's not on vacation, that is) to bring about hell on Earth for all but his close friends- who will no doubt profit enormously as long as there are still at least a few victims left to squeeze.
How can anyone still support him? Go ahead and kill-file me if you like, but anyone who can't see what the bastard is doing to our country is dumber than a f***ing post, and needs to get right up on the scaffold with their damned religious right and get their neck stretched too. It's the same old saw- your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, and I'm tired of seeing my country destroyed day after day.
Obviously, this tirade isn't aimed at all of you- plenty of the folks on this list (some of whom I'm sure I've already alienated) are fine and decent folks. The rest of you rednecks know who you are, and you're the ones who can go piss up a rope.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[...]

Captitalism & free markets at its best. Cheer up, it will get better when the US becomes a communist state (BTW: Several winters in hell will happen first, as snow in hell is much more lekely...)
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto: snipped-for-privacy@physik.uni-bonn.de Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Prometheus (in snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com) said:
| they'll let Louisana's residents drown
No worry - Halliburton will get the contract to put the entire Gulf Coast area back 'right as rain'.
Er... just as soon as they finish (with) Iraq.
-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

DieBolt already promised Cheny the president's job. So you'll probably be right about Halliburton cleaning up NO.
Bechtel (of Big Dig fame) is another candidate.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Prometheus wrote:

For checking out past knowledge of possible Big Easy problems: www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5
That's from last October. Given the exigencies of magazine publishing, the concept probably came up and got judged for suitability and possibilities a year or so earlier, based on preliminary research. A magazine can figure it out. Bush can't.
By the way, you're wrong in one spot. Bush isn't a twit. He's a twerp.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

AH.... Perhaps you're right. Mea Culpa.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

... snip

... snip of more of "it's all Bush's fault" rant

It's obvious that such visceral, irrational hatred is not something that can be addressed easily. You do need to get a bit of a grip however, blaming one person or group of persons for all of the ills you see in the world is not healthy, especially given that some of the ills you are citing above don't even exist. Some of the ills you address weren't even started during Bush's administration but go back to a previous admin. At times like this you further seem to give Bush almost god-like powers, failing to recognize that there are checks and balances built into the system.
You are blaming Bush for the future high cost of heating oil? Whose fault is it that no (read that zip, zilch, nada) new refineries have been built in the past 30 years? Hint: It's not Halliburton out protesting and trying to find some endangered microbe to prevent the construction of any proposed building project anywhere in the US. Now the source of 25% of the US supply of refined products has been hit by a natural disaster and we are surprised that putting all of our eggs in only a few baskets (because they were there before the wave of anti-building forces were active) is going to cause problems?
I'm also sure that you will be able to find some reason that it is also Bush's fault that the rescue efforts are being hampered by people shooting at the rescue workers. What in the world is up with that?

Probably not worth responding to someone exhibiting such visceral hatred, but just to put a few facts into the discussion so that you can have a more rational go at it in your next diatribe. 1) For state disasters such as this, it is typically the state governor who requests other state National Guard support through the federal government. The papers at the federal level had been signed allowing this, all that was needed was the Louisianna governor's request for deployment. It didn't come until 2 days ago. 2) The Louisianna governor was waiting for information from "boots on the ground" in New Orleans to inform the governor's office regarding whether such a deployment request was necessary. They apparently lost contact with those people in New Orleans and didn't realize how bad things were getting. [editorial note: when one loses contact with one's surveillance assets, one generally assumes that something bad has happened, not that everything is peachy-keen and can wait until contact is re-established].
I'm sure had the government taken the opposite approach, positioning huge amounts of personnel and material in place for a large disaster, and had the hurricane not turned out to be a major disaster, Bush would have been decried for the waste of time and materiel and the impact on the National Guard's lives and morale over what turned out to be nothing.
Frankly, the fact that some people seem to view this disaster as more of an opportunity for further political partisanship and another opportunity to bash the sitting president rather than seeing it for what it really is, a significant disaster needing support is really disturbing. One can't even address what are real failures without bringing politics into play rather than trying to find the root cause of the problem and go fix that.
Having seen an AP report this morning, I can certainly understand where some of this rancor comes from, there was absolutely nothing objective in that report. They were even beating on the federal government for not activating the Civilian Reserve Air Fleet to help in this.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Some people will support Bush right up until Pat Robertson (the con artist, not the Senator) turns on him, yet more proof that some people are as dumb as a post.

While I agree with you, he had little to do with the instant case although it appears that FEMA has been at least as slow as everyone else to mobilize. Now, the president is responsible for the people who head up the federal agencies so it looks like that particular choice may not have been the best. But, iMHO that's not a

It is not irreational. As OP noted, it is based on observations. He just didn't go into detail.

For example, as Bush himself has lamented, the USA doesn't have an energy policy. Thirty years ago we had an energy policy intended to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That policy was scrapped around 1981, under a previous administration.

Since we do not have bona fide fuel shortages and I cannot imagine the industry refining massive quantitites of fuel oil and setting it aside for a rainy day I daresay the cost of fuel oil is not up because of a dearth of refineries.

I haven't heard of anybody shooting at a rescue worker. I have heard of one police officer (unfortunately) beign shot by a looter. Stopping looters is very important work, I just wouldn't call it rescue work.

Assuming that's true the governor and probably the mayor too both deserve to be taken out and shot. But this isn't the time.

Indeed, that is exactly what he did in Iraq, and he is rightfully being decried for the waste of time, money, material and lives that was the inevitable result. Not decried by all, the afor- mentioned dumb as a post Robertsonites and their ilk still support him as they have not yet been told to stand down.
But again, this isn't the time. We cannot replace the President, Head of FEMA, the governer of Lousiana, or the mayor of NO fast enough to make a difference in the present situation. But lets go back to addresses those greivences as soon as we can.
Aside from the references to Pat Robertson's followers, there is no mention of wood here. Do we have the common sense, courtesy and balls to move it to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3 Sep 2005 15:31:09 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

continue this discussion with the kind of people who hang out in newsgroups where this discussion *is* on-topic? I'll pass.
Lee
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3 Sep 2005 15:31:09 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

I thought we do have an energy policy, and full of pork barrels didn't we? I bet you, the Oil companies are now laughing all the way to the bank, just like the oil traders at Enron laughing during California's energy crisis.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:38:41 -0500, Prometheus
<Major snip>

Thank you for speaking out. So there is at least one sane American out there. Goes against the general protracted image that you are all bush bible bashing buddies. Maybe your biased news networks should get some unbiased views of the peoples feelings and not those of those who get paid to say the right things.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@mailbox.co.za says...

There's lots of us out here. We've just gotten tired of arguing with the Bush bible-thumpers (not bible bashing).
Besides, the way things seem to be going, if we do argue they'll burn us at the stake :-).
--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

If you think our news media is biased towards Bush and his policies, I would hate to see a media that was out to have him tossed out of office. [hint, our mainstream news media goes out of its way to bash Bush and his adminstration. The bias in the media is apalling -- all of this paranoia regarding how Bush and his cronies would suppress dissent is exactly that, a bunch of paranoid hooie]

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

I agree that the Bush administration does receive criticsm from the American press and media. But like OP, I agree that it is not nearly as much as it deserves. One of the games played by the pro-Bush media is to give 'equal time' to the opposition by focusing on marginal figures like that mother in Texas.

Do you mean, like, protestors at events like the inagural parade are allowed to intermingle with everyone else along the parade route and not directed to 'free speech zones'?
I dunno when THAT started, but it was as wrong then as it is now.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

Yes, of course that can be seriously argued. See below.

Exactly right. But this is independent of the type, or extent, of Iraq's natural resources, and depends rather on the type and extent of its armaments, and its intentions for using them. An Iraq armed with, for example, nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, would threaten the peace and stability (such as they are) of that entire strategically critical region. This is independent of whether Iraq itself possesses any petroleum, or not: the point is that it would threaten those of its neighbors who *do*.
Again, an Iraq so armed poses a dire threat to the security of the only democracy in the Middle East -- independent of what natural resources Iraq may or may not possess.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

You misspelled "explain".

Missed the words "for example" in my post, did you? [irrelevantia spawned by this oversight snipped]

I didn't say that it was.

Please read more carefully. I said that the level of threat that Iraq might pose is independent of whether *Iraq* possesses petroleum or not. If the *region* had no petroleum, of course it wouldn't be terribly important. But that's not what I said.

I thought that was pretty clear.

Please read more carefully. You suggested that it cannot be seriously argued that our policies toward Iraq would be the same if it had no oil. I'm pointing out that it certainly *can* be seriously so argued, because Iraq's location in a strategically important region, and any threat that it may or may not pose to the stability of that region, depends on Iraq's military resources and its penchant for using them -- not on whatever natural resources it does or does not have.

Missed the words "for example" in my post... and all of the point as well.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

No, you said "for example". However the hypothetical being discussed was Iraq without petroleum. NOT Iraq with a threatening military.

ALmost agree with you. Absent petroleum (and Israel) in the region we'd have little interst and most of that would center on the Suez Canal which is much more of a concern to Europe anyhow.

No, not any threat it "may or may not pose". Only a threat it DOES pose would justify it. Clearly a threat Iraq DOES NOT pose would not. Clearly Iraq does not (and did not in 2003) pose such a threat.
You are introducing a second change into the hypothetical that being the existance of an Iraqi military threat to the region.
Certainly it is possible to invent, out of whole cloth, or even by drawing exagerrated inferences from scant, doubtful, and contradictory inforamtion, to come with a DIFFERENT hypothetical in which the US policies toward Iraq would be the same. We've actually seen that done quite recently.
You may as well suppose for instance that Iraq was located next to Kansas.
Your "explanation" is orthogonal to mine. It is all what you might charaterize as "bobbing and weaving" were it not your own.

Well I could have further qualified my statment by adding, "unless you postulate some additional factor as inconsistent with reality as an Iraq without oil." But that hardly seemed necessary.
Hmm. Just now you did not say that Iraq actually did (in 2003 or since) pose a dire threat to the petroleum supply in the region, or to Israel.
So, what justification can you see for the invasion and occupation of Iraq given how Iraq actually was (in 2003) and is today?
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

Exactly so -- because the military threat that Iraq posed to its neighbors is not a hypothetical.

Precisely. Keep at it. You're starting to catch on.

Justify *what*?
You seem to have forgotten what we were discussing, to wit: whether or not US policy toward Iraq depends on Iraq's possession of oil. I contend that said policy is influenced primarily by Iraq's location in an oil-producing region and the extent of its military power and aspirations; you contend that said policy depends primarily (if not solely) on the extent of Iraq's own oil reserves. I have explained why, in my view, your contention is erroneous. At no point have I commented on the wisdom (or lack thereof) of said policy, or whether it is or is not justified. I'm not interested in having that discussion with you.

You seem to have forgotten that, in 2002, anyway, it was very clear to nearly everyone that it *did*. To refresh your memory, here are a few public statements that you appear to have forgotten:
http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

Ummm, no, that would not be a hypothetical.

Oh, you mean like your population and birth rate figures for France?

Or I might as well suppose that you have the ability to follow a logical argument...
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

In 2003 Iraq did not pose a dire (your adjective) threat to its neighbors, and we all knew it because UNMOVIC was showing us it was not

As you say the level of the threat posed by Iraq was independent of the oil it posessed (not really Iraq needed capital to build its military in the first place). That does not change the fact that that level was nearer to nonexistant than to "dire".

They were wrong. We started finding out just how strong they were toward the end of 2002 when UNMOVIC went into Iraq and found the nuclear and other WMD sites to still be sealed or destroyed just like they were when UNSCOM left.
Addressing your hypothetical Iraqi nuclear threat, IAEA found Iraq's reactor fule and yellowcake still under IAEA seal as they had left it, found no evidence of importation of nuclear materials or equipment, found the facilities still unuseable and so on.
Thus, an Iraqi nuclear threat in 2003 IS an hypothetical.
In addition, Iraq had insufficient miltary to threaten any of its neighbors, Saddam Hussein didn't even have control of the Northern third of his own country.
There could be no serious argument for predicating a policy on a threat that does not exist.

A dire Iraqi military threat is certainly is not a 'factual. It is hypothetical just like an Iraq without oil is hypothetical.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.