Hollywood vs. Terrorism by Skywalken

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Without saying anything beyond "bad things are bad, up with good things" they've just agreed to 1984 (but only if it's necessary, of course

HK, the level of hysteria by which you and those of like mind babble on about a FICTIONAL threat while overlooking an ever more present REAL one is beyond me. Granted, w/ such attempts by our 'leaders' to corral everyone into accept some level of meddling into our lives as with Know your Customer legistlation for banks, which thankfully was shot down in Congress. I'll give you that one.

Had this been a crowd of stars speaking out against President Bush, you'd be singing their praises. But alas, it's ONLY terrorism they're denouncing, so you casually dismiss it as dutiful drones gleefully handing over their freedoms to the big bad Alliance.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 19, 2006 6:41 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Had this been a crowd of stars speaking out against President Bush, you'd be singing their prasies. But alas, it's ONLY terrorism they're denouncing, so you casually dismiss it as dutiful drones gleefully handing over their freedoms to the big bad Alliance.

AURaptor, your comments are approaching Kanemanian levels of irrelevance and inaccuracy. I have never "sung the praises" of any Bush-bashers. I respect Rue's research and Signy's clarity, for instance, but I don't enjoy or participate in simple Bush-bashing.

The Ugly Truth: Our President is an Imbecile thread? Barely read it, never posted there, because I think that kind of stuff is pointless. Getting up in arms about Bush's casual conversation to Blair seems a little hysterical actually. The whole "China is big" thing is something I might say; nobody has to be stupid to state the obvious, particularly when you're just blowing off steam after dinner.

I've been reading a lot of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson lately and these men knew perfectly well the danger all governments pose to their citizens. Governmental power is a very dangerous thing, period, and must be kept in check always, not just when we feel safe and cozy and unasailable.

Even a president as recent as Eisenhower in '61 understood the grave danger of our "military industrial complex." If that guy were running in '08 I'd vote for him in a second. Do you think Eisenhower was wrong? Do you think the constitution is too limiting a document for a modern super power like ours?

Meanwhile, the threat of terrorism, though real enough, has been greatly exagerated by leaders on both sides of the aisle to secure their own power. I may have half-heartedly said something vaguely nice about John Kerry during the lead-up to our last miserable presidential election (and if so, for that, I humbly apologize), but I'm not a fan of either party, AURaptor. I dread Hilary's presidential ambitions more and more with each passing day.

AURap, can't you see that the Administration doesn't take the threat of terrorism seriously either? Why would they leave our borders wide open if they did?

(Seriously, I haven't read your rationalization for that one anywhere. Do you have one?)

And I suppose you blame the local governments for everything that went wrong in New Orleans, but you gotta admit that FIMA and DHS were pretty ineffectual in any event, don'cha?

Your fears are simply being played on while our government keeps sinking all our money into their war of choice. Does that seem right to you?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 19, 2006 6:51 AM

KANEMAN

Hk leave me out of it...Thank you..Oh, I happen to agree with Aur. He summed you up perfectly. You are very transparent... Sorry AURaptor.

PS thank god Eisenhower couldn't run a third time what a douche. Fucking wimp. "military-industrial-complex" thank god for it! Jobs, jobs, jobs. It is the reason we are untouchable. And the reason you hate. Don't hate HK.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 19, 2006 7:49 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think for the first time, I actually agree with Hollywood activism.

You agree with condemning Hezbollah AND Hamas?

Cool.

Me too Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 19, 2006 10:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Had this been a crowd of stars speaking out against President Bush, you'd be singing their prasies. But alas, it's ONLY terrorism they're denouncing, so you casually dismiss it as dutiful drones gleefully handing over their freedoms to the big bad Alliance.
AURaptor, your comments are approaching Kanemanian levels of irrelevance and inaccuracy. I have never "sung the praises" of any Bush-bashers. I respect Rue's research and Signy's clarity, for instance, but I don't enjoy or participate in simple Bush-bashing.

The Ugly Truth: Our President is an Imbecile thread? Barely read it, never posted there, because I think that kind of stuff is pointless. Getting up in arms about Bush's casual conversation to Blair seems a little hysterical actually. The whole "China is big" thing is something I might say; nobody has to be stupid to state the obvious, particularly when you're just blowing off steam after dinner.

I've been reading a lot of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson lately and these men knew perfectly well the danger all governments pose to their citizens. Governmental power is a very dangerous thing, period, and must be kept in check always, not just when we feel safe and cozy and unasailable.

Even a president as recent as Eisenhower in '61 understood the grave danger of our "military industrial complex." If that guy were running in '08 I'd vote for him in a second. Do you think Eisenhower was wrong? Do you think the constitution is too limiting a document for a modern super power like ours?

Meanwhile, the threat of terrorism, though real enough, has been greatly exagerated by leaders on both sides of the aisle to secure their own power. I may have half-heartedly said something vaguely nice about John Kerry during the lead-up to our last miserable presidential election (and if so, for that, I humbly apologize), but I'm not a fan of either party, AURaptor. I dread Hilary's presidential ambitions more and more with each passing day.

AURap, can't you see that the Administration doesn't take the threat of terrorism seriously either? Why would they leave our borders wide open if they did?

(Seriously, I haven't read your rationalization for that one anywhere. Do you have one?)

And I suppose you blame the local governments for everything that went wrong in New Orleans, but you gotta admit that FIMA and DHS were pretty ineffectual in any event, don'cha?

Your fears are simply being played on while our government keeps sinking all our money into their war of choice. Does that seem right to you?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

Terrorism has not been greatly exaggerated to secure power. In fact it has weakened our president if anything. The president's term is finite. No exaggeration can extend his presidency, and even if it weren't, I would just look to New York City skyline to see the threat is much MORE than an exaggeration.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 19, 2006 12:34 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:

Terrorism has not been greatly exaggerated to secure power. In fact it has weakened our president if anything.

How to put this politely?
WRONG!
It has been exaggerated and it has strengthened the Presidents agendas.
Exactly how has it "weakened" him?
911 made a great # of things possible or at least easier to pass through for this administration. It was a political blessing.

Talkin' to children Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 19, 2006 10:12 PM

SKYWALKEN

Here is a picture of the ad:

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 12:25 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
AURap, can't you see that the Administration doesn't take the threat of terrorism seriously either? Why would they leave our borders wide open if they did?

(Seriously, I haven't read your rationalization for that one anywhere. Do you have one?)

And I suppose you blame the local governments for everything that went wrong in New Orleans, but you gotta admit that FIMA and DHS were pretty ineffectual in any event, don'cha?

Your fears are simply being played on while our government keeps sinking all our money into their war of choice. Does that seem right to you?

HKCavalier

Agree w/ ya on the border problem. W has failed miserably in addressing this issue, and I think I know why. Big business. Or maybe he just really likes tacos, and thinks closing the border would jeopardize his getting his quota? Who knows.

As for Katrina, there's no question where most of the blame lies. The Army Corps of Engineers. It was their levee system which failed. Studies from LSU show that the foundations for the levee systems which failed weren't dug down even 1/2 as far into the ground as needed.

The levees failed before the tops were breached. ( read that last line again and let it sink in for a moment )

If the levees live up to anywhere near their expectations, there's no flooding. No flooding, this event is a far smaller disaster than it turned out to be.

The local Gov't , Ray "Chocolate" Nagin and Gov. Blanco dropped the ball big time. No effort what so ever was made by the Mayor to implement his own plan of evacuation. The photo of hundreds of school buses just sittting in flood waters, not being used in the least, should be shown every time this topic comes up.

The Fed's typical bureaucratic method was on a full pathetic display here. False news reports and interrupted communications services down there made it extremely difficult to know exactly what was going on, which made matters worse. More 'on site' authority is needed, but that's just not how the Feds work. There have been comparisons made between the Fed's response to the hurricanes in FL and Katrina, and even with the far worse destruction of Katrina, FEMA showed up in about the same amount of time, or sooner than in FL. Florida, where the BROTHER of the President is Governor.

And sadly, most forget that Mississippi got hit worse than New Orleans.( That's a story you won'jt find in Spike Lee's movie ) Entire neighborhoods were simply erased from the map. Towns blown away. This was a major natural event, and folks are acting as if they have some sort of right to have everything fixed by the Fed Gov't in a few weeks. Sorry, but that's not how the real world works.

As for my 'fears', let me tell you about that. I'm concerned that a giant buraeucracy like our Gov't moves on a glacial scale, at a time when we need quick action and clear thinking. The threat is very real, but could be handled in a far more effective manner.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 1:35 AM

America loves a winner!

I'm kinda disappointed that Adam, or any of the other BDH's names don't show up on this list.

What ever their views, I think this is one list that everyone should agree on. Even if agreeing means your name appears on a list which includes Rupert Murdoch.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 2:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
As for Katrina, there's no question where most of the blame lies. The Army Corps of Engineers. It was their levee system which failed. Studies from LSU show that the foundations for the levee systems which failed weren't dug down even 1/2 as far into the ground as needed.

The levees failed before the tops were breached. ( read that last line again and let it sink in for a moment )

If the levees live up to anywhere near their expectations, there's no flooding. No flooding, this event is a far smaller disaster than it turned out to be.

Under the full realisation I'm probably going to be called a pinhead, moron or idiot for bothering to reply:

It's my understanding that the levees were not designed to withstand a hurricane as powerful as Katrina, and that the army corps of engineers wanted to improve the levee system, but Bush wouldn't authorise the funds necessary (only authorising 20%).

Blaming the Army Corps of Engineers is worse than blaming the New Orleans city founders for building a city below sea level.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 3:33 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
It's my understanding that the levees were not designed to withstand a hurricane as powerful as Katrina, and that the army corps of engineers wanted to improve the levee system, but Bush wouldn't authorise the funds necessary (only authorising 20%).

Blaming the Army Corps of Engineers is worse than blaming the New Orleans city founders for building a city below sea level.

Your understanding is wrong. While Katrina was a Cat5 storm at one point, it veered East ( away from N.0. )and dropped somewhat in severity in the late hours before landfall. Mississippi bore the brunt of the storm. The levees were built ( initially) to withstand a direct hit from a Cat3 storm. The levees failed the glancing blow by Katrina, and surveys of the construction show why. The Corps of Engineers screwed up on the initial construction, and not by just a small margin. The window dressing improvements that you claim were so drastically cut back by the Bush admin wouldn't have done a damn thing. These problems go back DECADES and are more a tale of waste, graft and greed on the part of the state/local gov't than anything. Louisiana, and N.O. are legendary for the corruption in Gov't, going back to Huey Long ( 1920's - 1930's ) and before.

As for the Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans might be their greatest boondoggle. In and effort to help the region economically, The New Orleans Industrial Canal was cut through the lowlands between the river and Lake Pontchartrain. Sadly, $$ has been spent on this project even though barge traffic is on the decline. $$ which should have been used to reinforce suspect levees.

Oh, and to make matters worse, the city of N.O. is actually sinking. The reason? The very canal the which was suppose to give it an economic boost.

So, to steal a quote - It's worse than you know . And it really is. And much more complicated too. Sorry, but for you or anyone to quip that all this can be laid at the feet of Bush, or even his administration, is quite simply ignorance on a colossal level. I have no need for name calling. It is what it is.

That ain't hatin', that's just factin'.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 4:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
So, to steal a quote - It's worse than you know . And it really is. And much more complicated too. Sorry, but for you or anyone to quip that all this can be laid at the feet of Bush, or even his administration, is quite simply ignorance on a colossal level. I have no need for name calling. It is what it is.

You just called me ignorant; considering you called me ignorant for saying something I wasn't even saying is pretty funny.

The only person simplifying the situation is you fella, "It was all the fault of the Army Corps of Engineers!" isn't gross over simplification? Please.

YOU claim the levees didn't experience forces that exceeded what they were designed to experience, but don't back it up. Furthermore it was well known that the levees had fallen into disrepair and needed to be repaired in order to fulfil what they were designed for, let alone that experts also believed that they needed to be updated, for instance:

Quote:
Martin McCann a civil and environmental engineering professor at Stanford University
"As further development goes on behind levees, over decades you need to revisit the question and say, are those levees providing us the protection that we wanted?"
"The answer is probably no, because the exposure is probably greater. The number of people and the valuable property is greater."

And it's far from my claim (as you so cynically dress it) that the Bush Admin cut funding, for instance:

Quote:
New Orleans CityBusiness Feb. 16, 2004
The $750 million Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection project is another major Corps project, which remains about 20% incomplete due to lack of funds, said Al Naomi, project manager. That project consists of building up levees and protection for pumping stations on the east bank of the Mississippi River in Orleans, St. Bernard, St. Charles and Jefferson parishes.

The Lake Pontchartrain project is slated to receive $3.9 million in the president's 2005 budget. Naomi said about $20 million is needed.

"The longer we wait without funding, the more we sink," he said. "I've got at least six levee construction contracts that need to be done to raise the levee protection back to where it should be (because of settling). Right now I owe my contractors about $5 million. And we're going to have to pay them interest."

You are trying to simplify the whole thing ridiculously, blaming it entirely on the Army Corps of Engineers which makes about as much sense as blaming the whole thing on NO city founders for founding a settlement below sea level. I merely said that Bush cut founding for upgrades that may have helped, which in your rabid desire to protect your messiah some how translated in your head to me blaming everything that's ever gone wrong in the world on Bush.

Well while your apportioning blame for everything to the Army Corps of Engineers and attempting to stone the heretics that mention Bush's name maybe you'll realise how colossally ignorant that position sounds.

That's not hating, that's just actually including facts in my post and responding to your post in exactly the same tone as you responded to mine. I await your escalation.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 6:07 AM

America loves a winner!

First of all, you are ignornt. You did say that Bush was to blame for all this, only funding 20% of what was alloted for repairs of the levees. That's horseshit. Then you claim I called you ignorant for NOT making the very point you DID make, you've painted yourself in such a corner that you're sounding like some OTHER trolls we see here.

You want me to back up my claims ? About what, the decades of graft and sqwandering of Fed $$ by the state of Louisiana? Sorry, I'm not in the mood to whip up a term paper on the issue. Google it your own damn self. Then you invert the amount of money YOU say was underfunded by the Bush administration. First you said it was only 20% of the total, THEN your post says " which remains about 20% incomplete due to lack of funds, said Al Naomi, project manager."

Quote:

It's my understanding that the levees were not designed to withstand a hurricane as powerful as Katrina, and that the army corps of engineers wanted to improve the levee system, but Bush wouldn't authorise the funds necessary (only authorising 20%)

(It's actually 80% complete, but so what ? ) Bush was in office starting in Jan. of 2001. These projects have been going on for 40 years! And are EXPECTED to go on for several more! Even before the Katrina disaster. Just gloss over the facts, pal.It makes life SOoooo much easier,huh?

From June, 2003.... The design of the original levees, which dates to the 1960s, was based on rudimentary storm modeling that, it is now realized, might underestimate the threat of a potential hurricane. Even if the modeling was adequate, however, the levees were designed to withstand only forces associated with a fast-moving hurricane that, according to the National Weather Service’s Saffir-Simpson scale, would be placed in category 3. If a lingering category 3 storm—or a stronger storm, say, category 4 or 5—were to hit the city, much of New Orleans could find itself under more than 20 ft (6 m) of water.
- Civil Engineering Mag. http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0603feat.html

And speaking of Al Naomi, here's what Civil Engineering had to say about him in the June 2003 article...." Naomi was in high school when the Corps began constructing the levees bordering Lake Pontchartrain. And he will probably retire long before the barriers around the southern part of the city are completed—in 2018 if all goes as expected. In the next few years he will also oversee the beginnings of three Corps levees that are now being constructed around less populated areas outside of New Orleans: Venice, Grand Isle, and Larose. About $900 million has already been spent on Louisiana’s hurricane protection program, and before the current projects are complete more than $1.4 billion will be required. " There is no simplified answer, my friend. But it's you who keeps trying to find one.

Oh, and FYI...." December 2005

U.S. Water News Online

NEW ORLEANS -- Government engineers performing sonar tests at the site of a major levee failure found exactly what independent investigators said they would -- that steel reinforcements barely went more than half as deep as they were supposed to, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers official said.

"We've come up with similar results" to those from earlier tests performed by a team of Louisiana State University engineers, said Walter Baumy, the Corps' chief engineer for the New Orleans District.

Baumy said the Corps now intends to pull out pieces of the remaining wall along each edge of the breach at the 17th Street Canal to verify the results of the sonar tests. The canal itself is now mostly dry at the site of the breach, with temporary walls holding back water from each side, allowing for excavation.

Baumy said the Corps remains unable to explain the disparity between their 1993 design documents and what they've actually found. " http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcpolicy/5corpsays12.html

Learn before you post, son.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 6:37 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

Cool,

so we're all in agreement. When people with public visibility care about a cause, they should use that visibility to support it.

That doesn't make their opinions particularly valid just because they have a platform from which to be heard, but the fact that they are celebrities does not invalidate them any moreso.

So rather than to continue to use the rhetoric of discrediting because of profession, rather than because of what is being said, we can finally retire that old O'reily/Limbaugh(who are basically 2 lame celebrities) rant.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 6:43 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

I have no reason to believe that the levies would have been fully upgraded by now, had Bush not cut funding to them. Regardless, in the wake of such a disaster, can't you see that levee funding should have been a priority, and yet again, this administration's are out of wack? Obviously New Orleans needed that funding. Obviously the threat was clear and present - so he cuts the funding?

And none of that excuses the reaction to the disaster. Apparently everybody in the white house was getting their Katrina information from one obscure paper that said "New Orleans dodged a bullet." They aren't in contact with anyone down there? Give me a fucking break.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 7:11 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
I have no reason to believe that the levies would have been fully upgraded by now, had Bush not cut funding to them. Regardless, in the wake of such a disaster, can't you see that levee funding should have been a priority, and yet again, this administration's are out of wack? Obviously New Orleans needed that funding. Obviously the threat was clear and present - so he cuts the funding?

And none of that excuses the reaction to the disaster. Apparently everybody in the white house was getting their Katrina information from one obscure paper that said "New Orleans dodged a bullet." They aren't in contact with anyone down there? Give me a fucking break.

You have no reason to believe that the Levees would have been complete 15 yrs from now, which is when the Army Corps of Engineers EXPECTED all this to be finished. But post Katrina findings show that even WITH these additions, the levees STIL WOULD HAVE FAILED! What about THAT arne't you getting ?

It seems you want to excuse the reaction of the state and local leaders, while holding Bush et al at fault. Unfuckingbelievable. Ray "Chocolate City" Nagin ignored his OWN damn evacuation plan, and allowed for this constituents to drown. HE DID IT! Not Bush. Gov.Blanco sat on her hands and debated whether or not to allow Bush to send in help, fearful of how 'things might look '... a GOP President coming to the aid of a woman Democrat Gov. Her failure to act quickly cost lives.

Funny how a thread on Hollywood vs Terrorism has become a sqwabble over Hurricane Katrina

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 7:26 AM

And there's the escalation.

Quote:
You did say that Bush was to blame for all this, only funding 20% of what was alloted for repairs of the levees. That's horseshit. Then you claim I called you ignorant for NOT making the very point you DID make, you've painted yourself in such a corner that you're sounding like some OTHER trolls we see here.

No I said Bush cut spending to only 20%, I.e. that there were more factors at work than just "It’s all the Army Corps of Engineers fault!" which was your claim which was horseshit. And Bush did cut the spending, that's not horseshit, it’s fact. I defy you to prove I said this is all Bush's fault, you can't because I never said that, but in your rabid desire to defend your messiah you saw the name Bush and went off to stone the heretic.

And before we start down the road of Troll accusation remember who is the only person here throwing around personal insults (you) a known troll tactic, and accusations of trolling (again you) another troll tactic.

Quote:
Even before the Katrina disaster. Just gloss over the facts, pal.It makes life SOoooo much easier,huh?

I suspect you don't use this tone when talking to people IRL, if you did you'd never be out of hospital after the endless string of hidings you'd receive (note I'm not threatening you, just pointing out how much of an arsehole you sound here (also I’m not calling you an arsehole, I'm saying this makes you sound like one)).

I'll say it again. I NEVER said, nor implied that it was all Bush's fault. YOUR reading of my statements is wrong. If you continue to argue against the strawman you've created you're just going to end up sounding like a fool.

Quote:
The design of the original levees, which dates to the 1960s, was based on rudimentary storm modeling that, it is now realized, might underestimate the threat of a potential hurricane. Even if the modeling was adequate, however, the levees were designed to withstand only forces associated with a fast-moving hurricane that, according to the National Weather Service’s Saffir-Simpson scale, would be placed in category 3. If a lingering category 3 storm—or a stronger storm, say, category 4 or 5—were to hit the city, much of New Orleans could find itself under more than 20 ft (6 m) of water.

You do realise this supports what I was saying right? That the specifications didn’t protect against a hurricane like Katrina, right?

Thanks.

Quote:
There is no simplified answer, my friend. But it's you who keeps trying to find one.

Back to the strawman. Lets clarify:
You: It's the Army Corp of Engineers. Implying the situation is as simple as the ACoE did it.
Me: Bush cut funding needed to repair and upgrade the levees. Implying that it's not as simple as "the ACoE did it".
You: Bush isn't the Antichrist, STONE him KILL the heretic!
Me (thinking): What the fuck is this guy on?

You say "it's all the ACoE's fault", you simplify it down to that. I say it's not that simply and I'm the one simplifying things? Are you delusional or does Bush love removes one's critical thinking skills?

This obviously needs to be said several times before you get it through your thick skull:
I NEVER said it was all Bush's fault; I'm not the one simplifying the situation.

Simplifying it would be too said “It’s all their fault”. So simplifying the situation would be saying something like “It’s all the fault of the Army Corps of Engineers”. BTW what was it you said again?

Quote:
Government engineers performing sonar tests at the site of a major levee failure found exactly what independent investigators said they would -- that steel reinforcements barely went more than half as deep as they were supposed to, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers official said.

Oh AU, who exactly are you arguing against? I never refuted this, is Bush really that important to you that anything approaching criticism, anything approaching the suggestion that his handling of the situation wasn't optimal requires attacks from you like some sort of Cyber Crusade?

So you're saying that the levees needed a lot of work and the last thing they needed was a budget cut of 80%. Well least we agree on something.

Quote:
Learn before you post, son.

Like I said, "I await you escalation". Do you enjoy flame wars because whenever I speak to you it seems every word in your post is designed to provoke one?

Luckily I'm not your son, a fact I'm very grateful for. Learn before I post? Well I assume that was an open attempt to try and piss me off, but since your entire post was replying to someone else entirely I guess you must be talking to that voice in your head.

Now we can discuss how this isn't a simple matter of "Army Corp of Engineers BAD, Bush ~~GOD~~ GOOD" or you can continue to try to degenerate this thread in to another flame war. I await your decision (and likely escalation).

Quote:
Funny how a thread on Hollywood vs Terrorism has become a sqwabble over Hurricane Katrina

Yes because you can't let anything go without turning it into a flame war. Or maybe you mean: Don't you idiots know I have a phoneline to god and the truth, when I speak you shut up and listen.

Read before you reply, son.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 9:40 AM

America loves a winner!

Way back, I did say you OR OTHERS who claim it was all Bush's fault. So, my reply isn't JUST aimed at you.

I said the ACoEs bore MOST of the blame. Not 100%

Again, learn now to read, and stop being so paranoid.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 9:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:

Terrorism has not been greatly exaggerated to secure power. In fact it has weakened our president if anything.
How to put this politely?
WRONG!
It has been exaggerated and it has strengthened the Presidents agendas.
Exactly how has it "weakened" him?
911 made a great # of things possible or at least easier to pass through for this administration. It was a political blessing.

Talkin' to children Chrisisall

These so called "Great # of thingys", were the direct result of terrorism. They weren't needed or attempted to be passed before 911. If you believe terrorism is exaggerated you are a sorry, sorry sort. There is no hope for you. If the tactics taken by this administration are wrong in your mind, fine. But to brush off the threat of terrorism is political hog wash!. I could make a list of terrorist acts around the world in the last five years for you, however you wouldn't read them anyway. Children?

Kaneman may be on to something....isall. *Smiles*

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 9:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skywalken:
Here is a picture of the ad:

I think I know about five of these people!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Way back, I did say you OR OTHERS who claim it was all Bush's fault. So, my reply isn't JUST aimed at you.

So basically you were calling me a moron and ignorant for other peoples arguments not mine? I await your apology.

Quote:
Again, learn now to read, and stop being so paranoid.

My god you reach bottom and then you drop lower. You over simplify the issue, I call you on it and you accuse me of being other people.

This is a discussion forum, not an AURaptor is god and anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot moron pinhead forum. Why do you even bother coming here? You're obviously not at all interested in any level of discussion whatsoever so why bother?

Again, learn to read, get a level of reading comprehension above that of a two year old and stop being so paranoid about your love of your messiah that you'll attack the voices in your head all over an open forum.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:08 AM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:

If you believe terrorism is exaggerated you are a sorry, sorry sort. There is no hope for you. If the tactics taken by this administration are wrong in your mind, fine. But to brush off the threat of terrorism is political hog wash!. I could make a list of terrorist acts around the world in the last five years for you, however you wouldn't read them anyway. Children?

I've actually read them, and I would disagree with your assessment. I won a bet several months ago with a close friend of mine, who said the same thing you did. Tell you what, USB: You get that list of terrorist acts together. But before you post it, check something else out - the number of people worldwide struck and killed by lightning every year.

IIRC from the bet, the number of strikes from the 2003-2004 year (terrorist) was something like 2000 with a total death count of 650 (might have been 950 - been awhile since I looked this up). Oddly, the number of strikes from lightning were nearly identical - 2000/650. To be fair, this total did not count Iraq - nor should it, given that we can't separate sectarian violence and insurgent attacks from terror anyway (and if you could, call the WHouse, they'd like a word with you).

EDITED TO ADD: From Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning#Lightning_safety

Quote:
Nearly 2000 people per year in the world are injured by lightning strikes, and between 25 to 33 % of those struck die.

(or, in hard numbers, 500-700 of 2000)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_of_Global_Terrorism

Quote:
There were 208 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight increase from the most recently published figure of 198 attacks in 2002, and a 42 % drop from the level in 2001 of 355 attacks. A total of 625 persons were killed in the attacks of 2003

Sorry, but if you aren't wearing rubber boots and turning off the phone when it rains, USB, then you're underexaggerating this amazingly dangerous weather phenomenon.

The facts don't lie. Terror is overexaggerated. You're just as likely to be struck and killed by lightning. There's the numbers, now tell me again why I should be afraid?

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:16 AM

What does natural lightening strikes have to do with terrorism? One is a natural phenomenon created by a violent planet, The other is a man made brutality created by hate filled humans. And by the way 2000 terror strikes a year is what? Small potatoes.

I never said be afraid. You have nothing to worry about. Thanks to our vigilant and commited president.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
What does natural lightening strikes have to do with terrorism? One is a natural phenomenon created by a violent planet, The other is a man made brutality created by hate filled humans. And by the way 2000 terror strikes a year is what? Small potatoes.

I never said be afraid. You have nothing to worry about. Thanks to our vigilant and commited president.

And you won't get hit by lightning because my ultra top secret weather machine keeps it in check.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:44 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think for the first time, I actually agree with Hollywood activism.
You agree with condemning Hezbollah AND Hamas?

Cool.

Me too Chrisisall

Thank you, Chris. This is like the Ward Churchill discussion. It really shouldn’t be this difficult to get people to condemn terrorist groups. You don't have to be a Conservative Republican or a “Neo-Con” to condemn terrorist groups.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:47 AM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
What does natural lightening strikes have to do with terrorism? One is a natural phenomenon created by a violent planet, The other is a man made brutality created by hate filled humans. And by the way 2000 terror strikes a year is what? Small potatoes.

Now who's being childish? (answer: you)
You said that the terror threat wasn't an exaggerated threat. You said, and I quote,

Quote:
If you believe terrorism is exaggerated you are a sorry, sorry sort. There is no hope for you. If the tactics taken by this administration are wrong in your mind, fine. But to brush off the threat of terrorism is political hog wash!.

Are you afraid of lightning? Do you think we need to have mandatory storm laws? Do you think a crack team of operatives needs to come and check to see if everyone's home has a lightning rod? I seriously doubt you do.

According to your post though, anyone who isn't terrified by terror is a sorry sort personified by hogwash. I'm not misquoting, either, because there it is right there in your post. I'm hitting you with your own post; it was you who said to look up the numbers. I did. The same number of people get killed by lightning every year as get killed by terror attacks - so why is the big news splashed across your posts, as well as every news station, how bad terror is? Reality check, USB: The likelyhood of being killed in a terror attack in your lifetime is zero, just like the odds of being hit by lightning.

Therefore, I submit to you that the terror threat is exaggerated, and it's your ilk that exaggerates it. You said in your post that a dangerous threat was there, then said 2000 attacks was small potatoes. Which is it? A serious threat, or small potatoes?

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:53 AM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It really shouldn’t be this difficult to get people to condemn terrorist groups. You don't have to be a Conservative Republican or a “Neo-Con” to condemn terrorist groups.

It's not difficult to get people to condemn terrorist groups. It's difficult to get people to agree to definitions and solutions. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. That's the way the world works, sad to say.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:57 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
It's not difficult to get people to condemn terrorist groups. It's difficult to get people to agree to definitions and solutions. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. That's the way the world works, sad to say.

Odd though, that condemnation of Israel never seems to be qualified by such definitions and solutions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 12:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
What does natural lightening strikes have to do with terrorism? One is a natural phenomenon created by a violent planet, The other is a man made brutality created by hate filled humans. And by the way 2000 terror strikes a year is what? Small potatoes.

I never said be afraid. You have nothing to worry about. Thanks to our vigilant and commited president.
And you won't get hit by lightning because my ultra top secret weather machine keeps it in check.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

Thank you Citizen, happy to know I'm in good hands.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 12:02 PM

DREAMTROVE

Just to throw my two cents in

Hamas, Hezbollah, et al need reform, much like republicans and democrats, but I don't support a jihad against them.

60% of people working in hollywood, and 90% of those making executive decisions, are jewish. Is it astonishing that they condemn what they see as anti-jewish groups?

And that is not an anti-semitic remark, I would expect this of anyone. Arab leadership would condemn what it sees as anti-arab groups, ie. the US and Israel.

This is common sense. If someone doesn't do this they probably aren't very bright. What kind of ninny would not put pressure on anti-them groups. It would just allow anti-them as a position to thrive if they didn't.

If blacks decry the Klan, or whites decry the Black Panthers, that's not much of a surprise either.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 12:14 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Why do you even bother coming here?

Uhh..gee. Lemmie think on that one. Oh yeah, because I'm a huge Firefly fan, for starters. And as to why I come HERE , to the RWED forum, it's to give clarity and truth to an otherwise misinformed array of fellow browncoats.

Yeah, * I'm * just happy to be doing
good works.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 12:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
What does natural lightening strikes have to do with terrorism? One is a natural phenomenon created by a violent planet, The other is a man made brutality created by hate filled humans. And by the way 2000 terror strikes a year is what? Small potatoes.

Now who's being childish? (answer: you)
You said that the terror threat wasn't an exaggerated threat. You said, and I quote,
Quote:
If you believe terrorism is exaggerated you are a sorry, sorry sort. There is no hope for you. If the tactics taken by this administration are wrong in your mind, fine. But to brush off the threat of terrorism is political hog wash!.

Are you afraid of lightning? Do you think we need to have mandatory storm laws? Do you think a crack team of operatives needs to come and check to see if everyone's home has a lightning rod? I seriously doubt you do.

According to your post though, anyone who isn't terrified by terror is a sorry sort personified by hogwash. I'm not misquoting, either, because there it is right there in your post. I'm hitting you with your own post; it was you who said to look up the numbers. I did. The same number of people get killed by lightning every year as get killed by terror attacks - so why is the big news splashed across your posts, as well as every news station, how bad terror is? Reality check, USB: The likelyhood of being killed in a terror attack in your lifetime is zero, just like the odds of being hit by lightning.

Therefore, I submit to you that the terror threat is exaggerated, and it's your ilk that exaggerates it. You said in your post that a dangerous threat was there, then said 2000 attacks was small potatoes. Which is it? A serious threat, or small potatoes?

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

*Raises Hand* That was me being childish. What I'm getting at is you have to accept one as a possible threat living here on earth. The other should never happen.. that threat should be zero. Secondly, there are millions of lightening strikes a year. Only 2000 unlucky souls get hit. Not very good odds on lightening's behalf. Terror on the other is a direct hit every time, and as a result over 50% of the time it's lethal. It is (ridiculous) to compare or equate the two. Surely, you must see that. Third, terror strikes are aimed at a very small group of people, manly the west, lightening strikes are random for all of humanity.

2000 terror strikes is what? Small potatoes = SARCASM!!

And the only reason I will not be killed in a terrorist attack is because there are governments, composed of intelligent people, chasing these fools all over the globe. If they ever stop do you think the threat would rise? Of course you do.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 12:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Uhh..gee. Lemmie think on that one. Oh yeah, because I'm a huge Firefly fan, for starters. And as to why I come HERE , to the RWED forum, it's to give clarity and truth to an otherwise misinformed array of fellow browncoats.

Yeah, * I'm * just happy to be doing
good works.

I was referring to the RWED, yes. A discussion forum where you have never actually had anything approaching a discussion.

"it's to give clarity and truth to an otherwise misinformed array of fellow browncoats."Hmmm, an arrogant attitude not too dissimilar to that of a religious fundamentalist, you have the universal truths, any who disagrees with you is an idiot.

Exactly as I thought, you aren't interested in discussing anything; you are interested in silencing dissent. I guess that means anyone who comes here for a discussion (me and most other people here) should now ignore you completely.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 1:13 PM

From what I have read AUR does seem to be on the intelligent side of most issues. It doesn't seem like he thinks with his "heart" or pretend this world is a utopia. Usually makes for a clearer head, resulting in better decision making. All to often we are told to not hurt peoples feelings, include everyone, and a bunch of other PC nonsense. Refreshing to see someone with conviction.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 1:27 PM

To be quite frank USB your testimony carries no weight in this circumstance.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 2:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
To be quite frank USB your testimony carries no weight in this circumstance.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

In my short time here, I've come to expect your frankness. Carry on.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 2:20 PM

DREAMTROVE

Auraptor,

I thought I'd way in here.

I disagree with what you post most of the time, mostly I think you put to much faith into the idea that Bush is doing the right-wing thing, or what's best for us, but you're opinions are certainly welcome here. The more thought you put into them the better. You're not a troll, and it's the not a trol aspect of your argument that makes it welcome. Keep saying what we don't want to hear, but do us the favor of listening to the rest of us when we say what you don't want to hear. All of us are going to be wrong some of the time, and life never gives us the hint of letting us know beforehand what we're going to be wrong on, we just find it out as we go along.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 4:55 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
"it's to give clarity and truth to an otherwise misinformed array of fellow browncoats."Hmmm, an arrogant attitude not too dissimilar to that of a religious fundamentalist, you have the universal truths, any who disagrees with you is an idiot.

Exactly as I thought, you aren't interested in discussing anything; you are interested in silencing dissent. I guess that means anyone who comes here for a discussion (me and most other people here) should now ignore you completely

More empty rhetoric by you from across the pond. First, you mistakenly veiw my comments as 'arrogant' . All i've DONE is discusss the facts, but all YOU'VE done is your usual. Play the role of contrarian, say the opposite of what ever I say, and not ONCE have you ever dealt w/ my comments on a substantive level. Ignore me all you want, if it makes you sleep better at night. If you can't run w/ the big dogs, stay on the porch, brother.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 5:12 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Auraptor,

I thought I'd way in here.

I disagree with what you post most of the time, mostly I think you put to much faith into the idea that Bush is doing the right-wing thing, or what's best for us, but you're opinions are certainly welcome here. The more thought you put into them the better. You're not a troll, and it's the not a trol aspect of your argument that makes it welcome. Keep saying what we don't want to hear, but do us the favor of listening to the rest of us when we say what you don't want to hear. All of us are going to be wrong some of the time, and life never gives us the hint of letting us know beforehand what we're going to be wrong on, we just find it out as we go along.

It's clear that Bush is doing what HE thinks is best for the country. I was under the false impression that he was more of a right winger, but alas, he's too much like his father. I get that now. I think what is rubbing 'some' folks here the wrong way is that , in general, I HAVE thought a great deal about my comments, and don't often speak unless I'm certain of what I'm saying has some, or all basis in attainable fact. One of my favorite motto's is something Carl Sagan said -

" I do not want to believe, I want to know. "

Where I DON'T know, and am simply tossing out pure opinion, I'll try to make that clear. If I'm full of it, and can be shown that my view point is flawed, I have no problem learning from my mistakes or retracting anything false I've stated.

What annoys me, as it would anyone, is how some completely ignore what I'm saying, and instead accuse me of being a racist, bigot, etc..., simply because they have nothing but emotion guiding their view, and not fact.

If failing to fall in line w/ everyone else or trying to get along just to go along is how some define being a 'troll', then some folks need to open their eyes a bit more.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 8:45 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
What I'm getting at is you have to accept one as a possible threat living here on earth. The other should never happen.. that threat should be zero. Secondly, there are millions of lightening strikes a year. Only 2000 unlucky souls get hit. Not very good odds on lightening's behalf. Terror on the other is a direct hit every time, and as a result over 50% of the time it's lethal. It is (ridiculous) to compare or equate the two. Surely, you must see that. Third, terror strikes are aimed at a very small group of people, manly the west, lightening strikes are random for all of humanity.

Few things in life are more frustrating than trying to have a rational argument with someone who constantly changes the context of the discussion to suit their rhetoric and make their opposition look foolish--Hey, lightning and terrorists aren't the same thing, you big dummy!

The only problem with your ever shifting position, USB, is that there is only one specific context in which SevenPercent meant the comparison between terrorism and lightning to mean anything, and that was the context of relative threat to human life. Period. It's an analogy, not a tautology.

A man tells you your house is as tall as a certain tree and you come back with all the ways in which trees and houses are different. "A house has people inside while a tree has squirrels--NO PEOPLE, SQUIRRELS!"

The problem with the way you frame the argument, is that there are only ever two options in your head. Either terrorists are like lightning or they are not; Either terrorists are dangerous, or terrorists are totally unimportant; either you fight terrorists by waging wars on several uninvolved Middle Eastern countries, or you give the terrorists an open invitation to cut off our heads and enslave our women.

Terrorism's been around a lot longer than 5 years. No one is arguing that terrorism isn't a problem. 9/11 caught us with our pants down. All we're asking is that we pull up our dang pants and pay attention from now on, not start ancillary wars of agression, torture people based on their ethnicity and their geographical location, kill Brazillians on buses, use fear to win elections, etc.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 2:53 AM

DREAMTROVE

Auraptor,

Quote:
It's clear that Bush is doing what HE thinks is best for the country.

I agree with this. I don't btw, think that Cheney and co (who are mostly not conservatives at all, and a fair # of them are democrats, and many are rinos, and former communists) I don't think *they* actually give a damn what's best for the country, but I think Bush (mistakenly) trusts them, and that he believes it's best for the country.

Quote:
I was under the false impression that he was more of a right winger, but alas, he's too much like his father. I get that now.

I think he's not enough like his father. His father was a weak conservative, but he was a lot stronger than the son. I don't think W. Bush is much of a conservative at all. I think people mistake his hawkishness for conservatism, but there have been a large number of prominent democrat hawks (more than republicans actually) and commies are often hawkish. It's not a partisan thing.

Quote:
I think what is rubbing 'some' folks here the wrong way is that , in general, I HAVE thought a great deal about my comments, and don't often speak unless I'm certain of what I'm saying has some, or all basis in attainable fact. One of my favorite motto's is something Carl Sagan said - " I do not want to believe, I want to know. "

Sure. And some of it is partisanship, but I think you state things too definitely. Definite stance should be reserved for things like evolution, stuff you're very sure of.

Quote:
Where I DON'T know, and am simply tossing out pure opinion, I'll try to make that clear. If I'm full of it, and can be shown that my view point is flawed, I have no problem learning from my mistakes or retracting anything false I've stated.

I suspect we're pretty much all doing the same. I suspect you're tenative opinion is coming across as beliefs or fact, do to language points, which I haven't really been counting that closely, so I don't have specific examples. I know for me, it took a long time to learn not to open with "No, you're wrong." I think Dale Carnegie straighten me out on that one. Language is tricky, there are an endless number of little pitfalls.

Quote:
What annoys me, as it would anyone, is how some completely ignore what I'm saying, and instead accuse me of being a racist, bigot, etc..., simply because they have nothing but emotion guiding their view, and not fact.

That's typically a defense of someone who doesn't want to counter the argument. I got furious recently at the latest "George Allen" post. I disagree with senator allen on a fair number of points, a) I think he's too personally abrasive, which doesn't help his points when he's right, and b) he supports the globalist position, and I'm much more of a Taft Internationalist, and not a big fan of neocon globalist. Mainly I thinke that neocons are too liberal in the way they want to change the definition of conservative. Conservative evolves, but one point at a time. At the moment I think a large number of missteps have been taken. It's something which happened before, when Hoover tried to restructure the GOP philosophy based on european socialism, which led to the great depression (yeah I can prove this was the principle cause) Afterwards, the GOP rejected Hooverism completely, and needed to go back to Coolidge and build on that. I think we're in the same situation. The neocons have been filtering into power ever since watergate, implementing a very wide range of changes. I think that Nixon is probably the base we should use as "where conservative was before neocons" and then look at Reaganism and say "okay, one step at a time, which of these ideas is good" for instance, I like lowering the tax burden on business, that was a good idea. Even in Bush Sr.'s day there were some good new conservative ideas, like privatization, particularly privatizing the internet was a good idea, there was talk of privatizing schools, I like that one too. Whether anything good came out of Bush jr., I don't know yet, but privatization of soc. security was a good idea. Where Bush lost me was this mad rush ahead into radical change towards untested policies. And it hasn't worked out well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 3:06 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
What a non-event.

I'm with you here. More folks taking using terrorism in the news to get their names in the paper?

I am also quite disturbed by the "all costs" aspect.

And whew...Clint Eastwood and Kurt Russell aren't on the list...

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 3:15 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
IIRC from the bet, the number of strikes from the 2003-2004 year (terrorist) was something like 2000 with a total death count of 650 (might have been 950 - been awhile since I looked this up). Oddly, the number of strikes from lightning were nearly identical - 2000/650.

Thanks. Does put things into perspective, doesn't it?

Not that I disagree with your general concept, but critics would argue terrorism has the potential to make a two or threefold leap in a single year (when one gets a major attack off killing thousands), whereas lightning strikes do not. THAT is what people fear, what drives them to the firm, protective arms of Bush....

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 6:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
More empty rhetoric by you from across the pond. First, you mistakenly veiw my comments as 'arrogant' . All i've DONE is discusss the facts, but all YOU'VE done is your usual. Play the role of contrarian, say the opposite of what ever I say, and not ONCE have you ever dealt w/ my comments on a substantive level. Ignore me all you want, if it makes you sleep better at night. If you can't run w/ the big dogs, stay on the porch, brother.

More empty rhetoric and pathetic attempts at insults from you from across the pond. Bet you wouldn't do it to someone standing in front of you...

It's not arrogant for you to assume you are always right?

Wow way to prove me right, thanks.

You haven't discussed a thing, you never do, you say "this is the way it is" and if anyone DARES to discuss it with you you call them an idiot. That's not a discussion (though you obviously think it is).

The funniest thing is that you are so obsessed with the idea that you are always right that since I disagree I can only be acting contrarian. I have dealt with your comments, while you've argued against someone else entirely mistaking them for me (by your own admission no less). You are truly priceless.

Big dogs? I care not for your species, though dog seems about right for your level of cognative reasoning

.

Well look, I say you're going to start hurling insults in my very first post, and look what happens. You really are easy to predict.

You go on about not being emotional, it's really funny because you're very first post was chock full of an angry emotional reaction, accusing me of being an ignorant idiot.

"I'm not being emotional BUT how DARE you have an opinion different to mine you IDIOT!" LOL, priceless.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 7:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
In my short time here, I've come to expect your frankness. Carry on.

I apologise, what I meant to say is that there's a lot going on here which I don't think you get (because you've not been here long) and I don't trust your impartiallity here, because it's plain that AU says things you agree with. my responce was too glib.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 8:22 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
In my short time here, I've come to expect your frankness. Carry on.
I apologise, what I meant to say is that there's a lot going on here which I don't think you get (because you've not been here long) and I don't trust your impartiallity here, because it's plain that AU says things you agree with. my responce was too glib.

You can't stand it when anyone happens to agree with, or hell, even just understands my point of view.

Talk about being obsesssed!

And as for your prior post..... you got yourself so off track so far back that it's simply not worth trying to deconstruct and reconstruct all over again. You've weren't able to contradict anything I've said on the matter of New Orleans and Katrina, so we'll just leave it at that. I'll leave the insults for you to deal out.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 8:22 AM