[Mo Noyz]

As I have said multiple times, the federal government did not react any differently to this storm than they have to every storm that has happened since Hurricane andrew in 1992.

Two Cat 4 Hurricanes hit Florida last year, along with two other major storms. Isn't it odd that they didn't have the same kind of "problems" after the storm, jaim?

And why do you suppose that is?

I won't keep you hanging, it's because of local and state preparation. Preparedness is absolutely paramount when it comes to natural disasters. If you completely **** up your plans prior to the storm, the aftermath will naturally be much worse than it should have been.

Also, the federal government has always played nothing more than a support role when it comes to these types of events. If you did your homework a little more instead of belching back out the half truths and misinformation that the media feeds you, we wouldn't have to be having this conversation.

President Bush did exactly what he was supposed to do.

But, I'd be interested in hearing what it is, exactly, that he didn't do, in your mind.

[Mo Noyz]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Now thanks to this whining and blame, we have Bush ready to march regular army troops in at the next sign of disaster so he doesn't have to take the blame for incompetent subordinates.

Which, of course, is illegal.

[Baketech]

Of course it is...but this is one of the things I like about Bushy....he's not afraid to tackle an issue and bring on the debate. He knows full well he won't win support for that, but in the meantime all parties are engaged and discussing options... He can take a punch and isn't afraid to leave his chin out...

[BDA116]

I'm curious why Nagin's idiotic prediction of 10,000 dead bodies hasn't been brought up.
He should have a better handle on his city's situation that to make some absurd statement that turned out to be over ten times too high, what a complete friggin' liar he is.
Where's the mention of his incompetence on every leftist media outlet?

[Mo Noyz]

Why talk about Nagin when you can slam Bush?













(hahaha, I actually didn't mean for that sentence to end up as it did. Just a sweet coincidence)

[rocket]

Originally Posted by Mo Noyz

Which, of course, is illegal.

Not for long.

[Mo Noyz]

Eh, I don't know. They've been trying to turn that act over for a very long time. Or at least loosen it up a bit.

I don't see it happening.

[rocket]

Originally Posted by Mo Noyz

Eh, I don't know. They've been trying to turn that act over for a very long time. Or at least loosen it up a bit.

I don't see it happening.

Read the link on my Avian flu post. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171230,00.html He wants to use the Military to enforce quarantine. Crazy stuff bro.

[Mo Noyz]

Hmmmmm............

Well, I'll have to think about that one. Seems somewhat reasonable on the surface, but once government gets a larger role in local matters, the bureaucracy usually ends up making matters worse. Which is exactly why it's always best for them to play a minor supporting role.

Hard to say whether it's a good idea, or not. And a federally imposed quarantine could certainly lead to a sticky situation.

OTOH, they would have to essentially nullify the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 in order to grant such powers.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by Mo Noyz

Which, of course, is illegal.

Yes, and I'm going to take a different tack than baketech.

To me, Bush has no problem pissing all over the rights millions of Americans have fought and died for.

He demonstrated that with the Patriot act. ****, the FBI can watch your damn library card now if they want.

[Mo Noyz]

Originally Posted by LTL

****, the FBI can watch your damn library card now if they want.

C'mon, brother. You can do better than that.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by deleted by MoNoyz

What right do you miss the most?

You asked this question before. And my response is mostly the same. Maybe expanded a bit this time.

The right to be innocent until proven guilty.
The right to get on a plane...with dignity.
The right to privacy.
The right to own my land.
The right to not have some asshole threatening the country with TERROR everytime people start saying, "gee, I don't really want to lose the right to read books without Big Brother watching me" so he can continue his agenda...and then wondering why people don't want things like gasoline refineries built in their city.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by Mo Noyz

C'mon, brother. You can do better than that.

Are you kidding me?

So to you, it's OK for the FBI to go into a library and have the ability to find out what someone's reading...without a warrant?

[luvtolean]

The right to free speech, see campaign finance reform

[rocket]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

You asked this question before. And my response is mostly the same. Maybe expanded a bit this time.

The right to be innocent until proven guilty.
The right to get on a plane...with dignity.
The right to privacy.
The right to own my land. The right to not have some asshole threatening the country with TERROR everytime people start saying, "gee, I don't really want to lose the right to read books without Big Brother watching me" so he can continue his agenda...and then wondering why people don't want things like gasoline refineries built in their city.

When you're right you're right.

The right to privacy. Patriot Act
The right to own my land. Eminent Domain Abuse
The right to Free Speech Campaign Finance Reform

[Mo Noyz]

Originally Posted by LTL

The right to be innocent until proven guilty.

Has that really effected U.S. citizens? As far as I can see, the only people that that has effected at this point are the Taliban sympathizers being held in Cuba.

Originally Posted by LTL

The right to get on a plane...with dignity.

It's an uncomfortable trade off. I agree. But do we tie the hands of our airport staff just to facilitate our own comfort, or do we allow them to do their job to help guard against any possible terrorist efforts that originate in their ports?

The biggest problem here being the fact that the ante for guarding this country against any possible terror attacks was seriously raised after the September 11th attacks. I understand exactly what you're saying here, but I also believe that better solutions will be found through experience. BDA seems to feel that profiling is the answer. Maybe it is. But even that is a science that will have to be perfected over time.

The attack on the WTC was immediate and shocking. So it stands to reason that the changes that came in our national security structure would follow suit. Surely you can understand that.

Are some of the measures a bit extreme and senseless? Sure they are. But they are only in response to dealing with an event that was extreme and senseless.

Maybe I'm completely out of my mind to say this, but dealing with the WTC/Pentagon attacks certainly can not be a paint by numbers affair. There is no baseline there. And though I have little faith in government, I do believe that experience will increasingly lead to more exact and appropriate changes.

Originally Posted by LTL

The right to own my land.

C'mon, LTL. This admin had nothing to do with Eminent Domain. Now you know that. And the SC ruling only upheld what had already been on the books for quite some time. This was only brought to most of our attention because of the recent case. But, Eminent Domain is anything but recent. And though you choose to list this as one of your bitches, you seem to be overlooking that the SC essentially said, in their ruling, that they were going to leave that up to the states. To raise a fist against it is to say that you WANT federal intervention. That flies in the face of everything else you have been saying here.

Originally Posted by LTL

So to you, it's OK for the FBI to go into a library and have the ability to find out what someone's reading...without a warrant?

I guess that we first have to establish, without a giggle or guffaw, that the federal government couldn't have done this before the Patriot Act said they could.

You are a very smart man, moreso than I. But I'm willing to bet the farm that you could not have said this honestly.

If the FBI wants to know what I'm checking out from the library, I'd be happy to tell them. God bless the poor federal lackey that has to look over what I'm reading. Poor bastard would likely jump out a ****ing window from boredom.

But, then again, why would they even have to look at what we're reading?

It kind of reminds me of the anti-war protesters last year that whined and complained because police were filming them on the streets. Or the folks that bitch about cameras being set up on public streets.

Now, if the brown shirts want to set up cameras in your house, then you have something to worry about.

Until then....................

Who does it truly effect?

Watch me walking down the street if you want to. I'm too sexy for my shirt, brother!!

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by Mo Noyz

Has that really effected U.S. citizens? As far as I can see, the only people that that has effected at this point are the Taliban sympathizers being held in Cuba.

For now.

It's an uncomfortable trade off. I agree. But do we tie the hands of our airport staff just to facilitate our own comfort, or do we allow them to do their job to help guard against any possible terrorist efforts that originate in their ports? (snipped)

Over the last 5+ years I've traveled a whole bunch. Both domestically and internationally. The TSA is a ****ing joke. At least 5 times since 9/11 I've been with people, or had a ticket, in the wrong name, and/or at the wrong airline (as in the completely wrong terminal) and made it through all of security. Federalizing this action was stupid. Worker's comp claims for the same type of job are up over 50%. The same exact people (yes, I travel enough to recognize the screeners) that were doing this job before, now have a job in the biggest, most mismanaged bureaucracy in Washington...and we'll all pay for them now, for life.

Let's put it simply. No human can stop a trained terrorist, working with someone a bit creative for designing their weapons, from getting on an airplane. It's that damned simple. Anyone who thinks the TSA can prevent them hasn't thought about it. So why should we pay such a high cost in time and money for something so utterly useless at achieving it's mission?

And my pet peeve about these morons? I've been through security all around the world. And our screeners, now under the guise of TSA, have so much power they are incredibly rude. Absolutely the worst in 16 countries I've been to. They can do or say any-damn-thing they want to you. They are the judge and jury as far as your trip is concerned, and without relating more, they know it, love it, and use it from time to time.

C'mon, LTL. This admin had nothing to do with Eminent Domain.

I know, you asked me what I missed. I gave a laundry list.

I guess that we first have to establish, without a giggle or guffaw, that the federal government couldn't have done this (check what anyone is reading) before the Patriot Act said they could.
You are a very smart man, moreso than I. But I'm willing to bet the farm that you could not have said this honestly.

I know a bit about surveillance from friends who work in it. The stuff they can tell me about, in other words, is public info, is scary enough.

But there's a big difference in what is legal, and what isn't. Illegally looking into people's files carries ramifications. If they use the info, it will come back to haunt them. It's like a cop that illegally gathers evidence.

If the FBI wants to know what I'm checking out from the library, I'd be happy to tell them. God bless the poor federal lackey that has to look over what I'm reading. Poor bastard would likely jump out a ****ing window from boredom.

But, then again, why would they even have to look at what we're reading?

Why would they even look? Well, if they thought highly enough about it to write it into law, clearly they're interested.

I'm sure plenty of KGB and Gestapo agents thought it was a **** job too.

The answer is simple, control. The more the government knows about people, the more they control them. It's long been a tradition in this country to do what you want as long as you don't bother people. That includes academics in the library. Well, now if I check out a bunch of books on something radical, who knows who's watching me for it. That's absurd. Adding to the paranoia Bush is fostering in this country.

And tell me, how are you going to catch a terrorist this way?

It kind of reminds me of the anti-war protesters last year that whined and complained because police were filming them on the streets.

They don't seem to whine when the news cameras are there do they?

Or the folks that bitch about cameras being set up on public streets.

I of course, am one of those people. I don't like the feeling of being watched. If you don't know what I mean, goto China sometime. I hate the feeling. And many others I've traveled with agree.

Now, if the brown shirts want to set up cameras in your house, then you have something to worry about.

They can look in my house anytime they want. Satellite, helicopter...and of course the "cameras on the street" you mentioned earlier. There are so many snooping technologies available to the government, I have no illusions of privacy man.

Until then....................

Who does it truly effect?

All of us.

If you follow the rise of the truly oppressive governments, over the last 500 years, from the feudal lords of Japan, to Hitler, to Stalin, you'll find they systematically remove freedoms of the people. This is exactly what is happening in our country.

[BDA116]

Back to the original topic of not mentioning Tom DeLay.............
Why is the lefty that asked that original question not asking the same of Ronnie Earl?
Hmmmm.......it seems that ol' Ronnie has personally accepted the EXACT SAME types of donations he is indicting DeLay for. Yes, personal donation from the AFL-CIO and multiple corporations directly to Ronnie's campaign.
This is the same Ronnie that stated (when speaking of DeLay) that contributions from unions and corporations are against state law.
Another perfect shining example of lefties.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by BDA116

Back to the original topic of not mentioning Tom DeLay.............
Why is the lefty that asked that original question not asking the same of Ronnie Earl?
Hmmmm.......it seems that ol' Ronnie has personally accepted the EXACT SAME types of donations he is indicting DeLay for. Yes, personal donation from the AFL-CIO and multiple corporations directly to Ronnie's campaign.
This is the same Ronnie that stated (when speaking of DeLay) that contributions from unions and corporations are against state law.
Another perfect shining example of lefties.

I'd say it's a perfect example of how utterly nasty politics has gotten. When the Repubs are on the outs, they play plenty of nasty games too.

[BDA116]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

I'd say it's a perfect example of how utterly nasty politics has gotten. When the Repubs are on the outs, they play plenty of nasty games too.

I know, just havin' fun at the expense of others.

[luvtolean]

At least it was on topic.

[Mo Noyz]

Originally Posted by LTL

They don't seem to whine when the news cameras are there do they?

Nah, when they know they're gonna be on tv, the average potatohead goes out of their way to make sure they are seen so they can go home and call all of their potatoheaded friends and say, breathlessly, "did you see me? Did you see me?"

But god forbid them being filmed for any other pur